LIBRARY  OF  THE  THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY 

PRINCETON.  N.  J. 

PRESENTED  BY 

Dr.    F.L, 

,  Patton 

Division  . 

hS'L^Vb 

Section 

.  T4rb"5 

co^yl 

'•    v^^   w     r  I 


■-w   ^t^  I 


COMMENTAKY 


GOSPEL  OF  JOHK 


%/ 


DE.  AUGUSTUS  THOLUCK. 


TRANSLATED     FROM     THE     GERMAN, 


CHARLES  P.  KRAUTH,  D.  D. 


PHILADELPHIA: 

SMITH,  ENGLISH  &  CO.,  No.  40  NORTH  SIXTH  STREET. 

NEW   YORK:    SHELDON    &    COMPANY. 

BOSTON:    GOULD    &    LINCOLN. 

EDINBURGH:  T.  &  T.  CLARK,  No.  38  GEORGE  STREET. 

1859. 


Entered,  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1859,  by 

CHARLES  P.   KRAUTH, 

in  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  United  States  for  the  Western  District  of  Penn'a. 


STBBEOTTPZD  BY  W.  B.   HAVKM,  PITTSBDEGH,  PA. 


TRANSLATOR'S    PREFACE. 


One  of  the  most  eminent  Biblical  scholars,  not  alone  of  our  country, 
but  of  our  age,  in  imparting  some  of  the  impressions  derived  from  a 
sojourn  in  Europe,  says:  "To  the  American  Christian  who  travels  on  this 
part  of  the  Continent,  Tholuck  is  undoubtedly  the  most  interesting  person 
whose  acquaintance  he  will  make.  He  possesses  a  greater  personal  influ- 
ence and  reputation  than  any  other  theologian  in  Grermany."^  Prof.  Park 
in  his  Sketch  of  the  Life  and  Character  of  Tholuck,  makes  these  remarks : 
"As  a  Commentator  he  has  many  excellencies.  This  would  be  anticipated 
from  the  fact  that  his  reading  has  been  so  various,  and  his  memory  is  so 
retentive ;  from  his  almost  unequaled  facility  in  acquiring  language,  and 
his  peculiar  intimacy  with  the  Hebrew  and  its  cognate  tongues.  He  is 
able  to  write  and  converse  in  a  great  variety  of  languages,  as  the  English, 
Italian,  Dutch,  French,  Spanish,  Latin,  Greek,  Arabic,  Persian  and 
others.  He  is,  of  course,  qualified  to  illustrate  the  sacred  texts  by  a 
multiplicity  of  references;  and  he  quotes  with  peculiar  pertinence  and 
eff'ect  from  the  Oriental,  and  especially  from  the  Rabbinical  writings. 
For  a  single  specimen,  read  his  comment  on  John  vii.  37-39.  The 
classical  quotations,  too,  in  his  Commentaries,  are  eminently  valuable."  * 

Kaufman  observes  in  the  preface  to  his  translation  of  the  fourth  edition 
of  Tholuck's  John  :  "Nothing  is  perhaps  more  wanted  in  the  theological 
domain  than  a  good  Commentary  on  the  Gospels.  On  this  part  of  the 
Bible  our  language  afi"ords  the  student  little  that  is  valuable  in  a  critical 
and  doctrinal  view. — In  commenting  on  St.  John  particularly — the  Plato 
of  the  inspired  circle — it  requires  a  mind  of  a  peculiar  order.  This  mind 
Tholuck  possesses :  a  happy  combination  of  deep  and  meditative  thought 
with  a  Christian  heart ;  a  quick  apprehension,  a  glowing  imagination,  an 
accurate  acquaintance  with  language,  and  a  nice  perception  of  its  force, 
together  with  a  clear  insight  into  the  spiritual  natui-e  of  man.  There  is 
no  man  more  interesting  than  our  author  upon  the  theatre  of  Germany, 

1  Prof.  Robinson,  in  1831.     Biblic.  Reposit.  i.  29. 
'  Biblical  Cabinet,  xxviii.  2-i. 

(iii) 


IV  Translator's  Preface. 

nor  indeed  upon  the  literary  arena  of  any  nation.  He  stands  forth  pre- 
eminent among  the  learned  ones  of  that  learned  people ;  he  yields  to  none 
in  versatility  of  mind,  in  depth  and  compass  of  thought,  or  in  variety  of 
knowledge.  .  .  But  a  lustre  is  thrown  over  all  these  attainments  by  his 
deep  and  earnest  piety.  Such  a  fervor  and  glow  of  Christian  devotion  as 
everywhere  breathe  in  his  writings,  are  scarcely  to  be  met  with  in  any 
writer  since  the  days  of  Leighton.  Amid  the  doubters  and  infidels  of 
Germany,  it  is  truly  delightful  to  discover  such  a  spirit  as  Tholuck's; 
learned  and  eloquent  as  the  proudest  among  them,  he  still  preserves  the 
meek  simplicity  of  a  child,  and  brings  all  his  learning  and  his  laurels  and 
lays  them  down  at  the  feet  of  Christ." 

Mtiller^  says :  ''Every  thing  presents  itself  to  the  mind  of  Tholuck  in 
large  outline.  .  .  Bold  and  brilliant  images  are  always  at  his  command. 
Not  only  does  the  Holy  Bible  open  to  him  its  treasure-chambers,  but  the 
sages  of  Greece,  the  ancient  and  modern  teachers  of  the  Church,  the 
Christian  lyric  poets,  present  him  their  most  beautiful  flowers,  and  lay  at 
his  feet  the  most  apposite  expressions.  There  is  given  to  Dr.  Tho- 
luck  THE   POWER   OF   ENCHANTMENT   OVER   MIND." 

Not  one  of  the  Commentaries  of  this  illustrious  scholar  has  passed 
through  so  many  editions,  and  found  such  universal  favor,  as  the  one 
which  it  is  our  privilege,  in  this  volume,  to  offer  the  reader.  To  the 
illustrious  Neander,  whose  "life  and  whose  instructions  had  taught  him 
to  understand  the  Gospel  of  the  Spirit,"  Tholuck  dedicated  the  first 
edition  of  his  Commentary  on  the  Gospel  of  John.  His  original  plan  had 
been  to  present  an  epitome  of  the  exegetical  works  of  the  Fathers  and  of 
the  Reformers,  which,  upon  the  Gospel  of  John,  are  extraordinarily  nu- 
merous and  rich.  In  performing  this  labor,  he  felt  constantly  the  necessity 
of  marking  and  correcting  the  mistakes  into  which  these  illustrious  men 
had  sometimes  been  drawn  by  false  or  imperfect  principles  of  interpreta- 
tion. The  materials  grew  under  his  hand,  and  took  the  shape  rather  of  a 
history  of  the  hermeneutics  of  the  Gospel,  than  of  an  exposition  of  it. 
He  was  led,  in  consequence,  to  the  determination  of  preparing  a  com- 
pressed Commentary,  in  which  the  most  valuable  portions  of  the  ancient 
Expositors  should  be  presented  in  their  own  language — not  so  extended 
indeed  in  its  compass,  yet  on  the  general  plan  which  he  had  pursued  in 
his  Commentary  on  the  Romans,  (a  Commentary  which  De  Wette,  remote 
as  he  was  from  its  distinctive  theological  position,  pronounced  to  be 
superior  to  any  which  had  appeared  on  that  Epistle.)  The  only  reason 
for  hesitating  as  to  the  prosecution  of  this  purpose,  was  his  sense  of  the 
peculiar  merit  of  the  Commentary  of  Liicke.     A  work  characterized  by 

1  Stud.  u.  Kritik,  viii.  239,  quoted  by  Prof.  Park,  Sketch  31. 


Translator's  Preface.  v 

such  "  marked  exegetical  talent,  thorough  study  of  the  aids,  and  impartiality 
of  judgmcat,"  might  have  been  supposed  to  render  another  unnecessary. 
But  not  only  were  the  plan  and  extent  of  the  work  he  proposed  to  himself 
different  from  those  of  Liicke's,  but  it  seemed  to  him  that  no  one  work  upon 
such  a  book  as  John  could  render  all  others  superfluous.  The  Commentary 
of  Liicke  is  a  very  ample  exegetico-critical  treatment  of  the  Gospel,  Tho- 
luck's  was  meant  to  be  a  Manual  for  the  student  and  the  scholar.  The 
Commentary  which  was  given  to  the  public  in  1826,  met  with  such  favor, 
that  within  a  few  months  after  its  appearing  it  became  necessary  to  make 
preparation  for  a  second  edition,  which,  with  a  number  of  corrections 
on  particular  points,  but  with  no  essential  changes,  appeared  in  1828. 
Though  many  desired  that  he  should  give  more  breadth  to  his  handling, 
the  earlier  judgment  of  Tholuck  remained  unchanged — he  felt  that  a  more 
imperative  want  was  met  by  a  Manual  than  would  have  been  supplied  by 
any  other  form  he  might  have  given  his  work.  It  would  have  been  easy  to 
enlarge  the  work,  but  he  aimed  at  the  more  diflScult  task  of  compression — 
the  task  of  furnishing  a  work  which  should  be  comprehensive  without 
being  bulky,  and  which,  while  it  avoided  superficiality,  should  not  run 
into  excess  of  detail.  The  evangelical  character  of  the  Exposition,  its  mild 
fearlessness  in  the  defense  of  Christian  truth,  and  especially  its  views  of 
inspiration,  which  rose  so  far  above  those  maintained  by  the  old  Ration- 
alism, exposed  the  work  to  violent  assault.  Tholuck  was  willing  to  learn 
from  foes  as  well  as  from  friends,  and  the  severity  of  the  antagonism 
only  made  him  more  thorough  in  investigation  and  more  delibei'ate  in 
judgment.  Thus  the  opposition  of  enemies  not  only  helped  to  give  a  wider 
diffusion  to  his  works,  but  served  to  render  them  more  and  more  worthy 
of  the  distinguished  favor  with  which  they  were  received.  A  third  edition 
appeared  in  1831.  It  was  marked  by  increasing  definiteness,  fullness, 
and  precision.  The  interpretation  of  our  Saviour's  discourses  was  almost 
entirely  rewritten,  and  various  improvements  of  less  moment  were  made. 
In  the  preface  he  expresses  his  sense  of  the  defects  of  his  work — defects 
which  he  would  desire  and  hope  to  relieve,  were  he  thoroughly  to  remodel 
it.  To  explain  Scripture  more  largely  by  Scripture,  to  bring  to  bear  upon 
each  part  of  the  Bible  a  mind  enlarged  by  a  study  of  the  whole,  to  unite 
with  the  exquisite  accuracy  of  Bengel  the  profoundness  of  Calvin — these 
he  felt  were  necessary  to  the  formation  of  an  Expositor  of  the  highest 
order,  one  who  would  fully  meet  the  wants  of  the  Church  and  of  the  times. 
He  closes  the  preface  with  the  hopeful  words  :  "Despite  all  the  clamorers, 
the  edifice  of  a  Christian  theology  is  rising,  our  ancient  faith  is  justified 
on  the  side  of  scientific  theology,  of  Church  history,  of  exegesis,  of 
criticism,  and  the  unction  of  tJie  Poioer  will  procure  for  all  those  strivings 
an  entrance  into  hearts  prepared  to  receive  them.     Soli  Deo  gloria  I" 

1* 


vi  Translator's  Preface. 

The  changes  in  the  fourth  edition,  which  appeared  in  1833,  were  incon- 
siderable. This  edition  found  a  translator  in  the  llev.  A.  Kaufman, 
Minister  of  the  Episcopal  Church  in  Andover,  (Boston :  Perkins  and 
Marvin,  1836.)  The  notices  of  Mr.  Kaufman's  translation,  in  the  leading 
religious  periodicals  of  our  country,  were,  with  the  exception  of  the  review 
in  the  Biblical  Repository,  generally  rather  unfavorable,  and  in  some  cases 
severe.  The  obtrusion  into  the  translator's  preface,  of  private  opinions  in 
regard  to  various  points,  which  seemed  to  have  no  very  natural  con- 
nection with  Tholuck's  work,  or  with  his  own  labors  upon  it,  gave  special 
offense,  and  in  some  cases  seemed  to  lead  reviewers  to  an  unjust  estimate 
of  the  general  merits  of  his  work.  It  would  indeed  be  easy  to  point  out 
serious  mistakes  into  which  Mr.  K.  has  fallen  as  to  the  meaning  of  his 
author,  and  the  translation  is  throughout  rather  hard  and  mechanical. 
But  it  is  no  small  honor  to  have  performed  so  difficult  a  work,  even 
tolerably  well.  The  translation  shows  everywhere  conscientious  care, 
and  is  generally  correct.  Whatever  its  imperfections  might  be,  it  still 
met  a  wide-felt  want,  and  has  been  largely  used  by  theological  scholars 
in  this  country  and  in  England.  It  has  for  a  number  of  years  been  out 
of  print. 

A  fifth  edition  of  the  original  was  issued  in  1837,  the  year  after  the 
appearance  of  the  translation.  In  the  four  years  which  had  intervened 
between  the  fourth  and  fifth  editions,  so  much  that  was  important  in  the 
interpretation  of  John  had  made  its  appearance,  that  Tholuck  felt  it  a 
duty  to  remodel  his  work,  especially  in  the  portion  extending  from  the 
thirteenth  chapter  to  the  end.  The  number  of  pages,  however,  was  reduced 
by  the  greater  compression  of  the  style,  and  the  omission  of  some  of  the 
citations.  In  1834,  the  second  edition  of  Liicke's  Commentary  had  been 
published,  bearing  on  every  page  the  evidence  that  the  ten  years  which 
had  elapsed  since  the  appearance  of  the  first  had  been  faithfully  used  by 
its  author.  There  was  less  fire,  but  far  more  light  and  clearness  in  the 
work  in  its  new  form.  There  was  a  general  thoroughness,  acuteness 
and  finish  of  treatment  displayed  in  it,  yet  it  was  less  independent 
than  the  earlier  edition,  not  reverential  enough  in  its  estimate  of 
Divine  revelation,  and  very  unequal  in  the  exposition  of  different  parts. 
A  second  edition  of  the  second  part  of  Olshausen's  Biblical  Commentary 
had  also  appeared  in  1834.  The  peculiar  charm  of  this  work,  which 
is  as  familiar  now  to  the  English  student  as  to  the  German,  is  that 
it  is  one  outgushing  of  the  inmost  soul  of  its  author — it  has  a  unity 
and  freshness,  which  have  made  it  dear  to  many  who  would  turn  with 
indifference  from  works  which  might  justly  lay  claim  to  more  thoroughness. 
In  the  preface  to  the  fifth  edition  of  his  Commentary,  Tholuck  gives 
what  he   regards   as  its   distinctive  character  in  its  relations  to  these 


Translator's  Preface.  vii 

masterly  works :  "  "Were  I  to  express  what  I  regard  as  the  outward  rela- 
tion of  my  Commentary  to  the  two  with  which  its  spirit  is  most  in  affinity, 
I  mean  the  Commentaries  of  Liicke  and  of  Olshausen,  my  statement 
would  be  this :  the  Commentary  of  Liicke  pursues  at  large  the  learned 
investigation  of  many  points,  especially  of  critical  ones;  mine  limits  itself 
to  meeting  the  most  imperative  wants  of  the  preacher,  the  candidate,  and 
the  student,  with  the  effort  in  every  part  to  present  the  very  largest 
amount  of  matter  in  a  small  space.  To  the  work  of  Olshausen,  mine 
stands  in  this  relation,  that  while  in  his  the  grand  aim  is  to  present  the 
thought  in  its  xinfolding,  mine  to  the  same  degree  has  regard  to  the  his- 
torical and  philological  needs  of  the  classes  of  readers  just  mentioned. 
Their  labor  as  little  makes  mine  superfluous,  as  mine  does  theirs.  And 
though  in  general  we  exhibit  a  unity  of  theological  tendency,  yet  there  is 
an  individual  diversity,  so  that  one  part  of  the  world  of  theological 
readers  will  feel  more  drawn  to  one  of  us,  and  another  part  to  another." 

With  all  their  various  changes,  these  editions  were  nevertheless  not  so 
radically  diflferent  as  to  affect  the  identity  of  the  work.  But  between 
the  appearance  of  the  fifth  edition  (1837,)  and  of  the  sixth,  (1844,)  a 
revolution  in  the  criticism  of  the  Gospel  had  taken  place.  The  works  of 
Strauss  (1835,)  and  of  kindred  writers,  the  masterly  vindications  by 
Neander  and  others,  which  they  called  forth,  and  the  appearance  of  an  extra- 
ordinary number  of  books  of  high  merit,  bearing  on  the  interpretation  of 
John,  had  made  it  necessary  that  the  sixth  edition  should  be  newly 
elaborated  from  beginning  to  end.  Not  only  did  Tholuck  perform  this 
labor  thoroughly,  but  he  enriched  his  work  by  new  researches  in  neglected 
portions  of  the  ancient  mines,  so  as  to  make  it  an  ampler  store-house  of 
the  old,  even  while  he  was  bringing  to  it  fresh  treasures  of  the  new. 
Though  much  of  the  matter  of  the  other  editions  was  dropped,  and  what 
was  retained  was  compressed  as  much  as  possible,  yet  the  new  edition 
embraced  nearly  fifty  pages  more  than  the  latest  of  the  old.  This  edition 
the  writer  was  induced  to  translate  at  the  request  of  the  publishing  house 
of  Smith,  English  &  Co.,  Philadelphia.  Regarding  the  work  as  one  of 
science,  not  as  one  of  art,  he  has  believed  that  the  mere  graces  of  style 
should  be  freely  sacrificed  where  such  a  sacrifice  seemed  to  be  demanded 
by  exactness  in  reproducing  the  author's  meaning.  The  work  of  Tholuck 
has  been  revised  throughout,  his  references  of  almost  every  kind  have 
been  verified,  and  in  a  number  of  cases  corrected.  As  a  convenience  even 
to  the  scholar,  and  as  an  indispensable  aid  to  others  who  may  use  the 
work,  the  numerous  citations  in  the  learned  languages  are  accompanied 
by  a  translation.  The  writer  has  made  various  additions,  which  will  be 
found  indicated  at  the  points  at  which  they  are  introduced. 


viii  Translator's  Preface. 

The  translation  was  commenced  in  1854,  and  was  sufficiently  advanced 
to  have  been  furnished  for  the  press  in  1855.  Various  causes  led,  how- 
ever, to  a  postponement  of  its  publication  to  the  present  time.  Mean- 
while a  seventh  edition  of  Tholuck's  John  made  its  appearance.  It  will 
not  be  necessary  to  state  its  distinctive  features,  as  the  author's  preface  to  it 
will  be  given.  From  this  edition  important  additions  have  been  made, 
which  are  indicated  by  the  bracket,  [  ]•  Two  Appendices  of  valuable 
matter  have  also  been  made  from  it,  for  the  first  of  which  the  writer  is 
indebted  to  the  kindness  of  Prof.  T,  F.  Lehman,  of  this  city.  As  the 
translation  comprehends  the  whole  of  the  sixth,  and  so  much  of  the 
seventh  edition,  it  claims,  in  this  combination,  an  advantage  over  either 
edition  of  the  original,  as  in  the  seventh  much  of  the  most  valuable  matter 
of  the  sixth  is  omitted,  under  the  supposition .  that  the  reader  has  access 
to  the  earlier  editions. 

Though  the  labor  of  translation  has  been  carried  on  amid  the  duties 
and  interruptions  connected  with  the  pastoral  office,  yet  it  is  hoped  that  a 
conscientious  care  has  so  far  overcome  these  difficulties  that  the  defects 
will  be  found  rather  in  the  form  than  in  the  substance  of  the  work. 


CHARLES  P.  KRAUTH. 

tuqh,  Penn'a.  \ 
March  17th,  1859. 


122  Centre  Avenue,  PiTTSBunaH,  Penn'a.  \ 


AUTHOR'S  PREFACE  TO  THE  SIXTH  EDITION. 


Since  the  appearance  of  the  fifth  edition  of  this  Commentary,  theo- 
logical literature  has  been  enriched  to  such  an  extent  with  works  which 
have  exercised  an  influence  on  the  exposition  of  the  Gospel  of  John,  that 
we  could  not  avoid  the  labor  connected  with  a  new  elaboration  in  every 
part  of  our  Commentary,  in  the  earlier  editions  of  which  the  changes  had 
been  but  occasional.  In  the  preparation  of  this  sixth  edition,  we  have  used 
and  have  had  special  regard  to  the  following  recent  works  :  Neander,  Life 
of  Jesus,  3d  ed.;  Strauss,  Life  of  Jesus,  4th  ed.j  Krabbe,  Life  of  Jesus; 
the  critical  writings  of  Liitzelberger,  Schwegler,  Bruno  Bauer ;  Liicke's 
Commentary,  3d  cd.;  De  Wette's  Commentary;  Ebrard,  Scientific  Critique 
of  the  Evangelical  History ;  Mau,  on  Death,  the  wages  of  sin ;  and  others. 
"We  could  not  use  the  Commentary  of  Baumgarten-Crusius,  nor  Kostlin's 
System  of  John,  in  the  body  of  our  work,  but  have  noticed  them  in  a 
supplement.  Among  the  older  interpreters,  of  whom  the  other  Expositors 
have  hitherto  made  no  use,  or  but  an  occasional  one,  we  have  consulted 
throughout,  especially  the  following  :  Luther  in  his  Sermons,  Bucer, 
Crell,  Maldonatus.  We  have  used  Bengel  with  even  more  frequency  than 
before.  In  this  way  the  work  has  been  extended  beyond  the  size  of  pre- 
vious editions.  May  it  be  destined  in  this  new  form  also,  to  secure  a 
favorable  hearing  and  to  promote  science. 

Dr.  a.  THOLUCK. 

Halle,  Nov.  4th,  1843. 


PREFACE  TO  THE  SEVENTH  EDITION. 


In  permitting  this  Commentary,  after  an  interval  of  twelve  years,  once 
more  to  go  forth  to  the  world,  the  lapse  of  so  considerable  a  time,  during 
which  so  many  meritorious  works  upon  this  Gospel  have  made  their  appear- 
ance, has  rendered  it  necessary  that  this  new  edition  should  be  elaborated 
anew.  It  will  be  found  that  in  preparing  it  we  have  not  consulted  merely 
aids  of  recent  date,  but  also  a  number  of  the  older  Expositors,  hitherto 
little  used  or  not  used  at  all,  Origen  in  scattered  passages  in  his  works, 
and  some  other  Greek  Expositors,  Luther,  Brentius,  Tarnov,  Gerhard,  the 
ingenious  Bucer,  Bullinger,  Musculus,  and  others.  I  could  not  use  in  the 
earlier  part  of  my  work,  the  3d  ed.  of  Meyer,  nor  the  Danish  Commen- 
tary of  Klausen,  1855. — The  expressions  bearing  on  dogmatics,  have  also 
been  more  thoroughly  discussed.  As  regards  the  critical  question  which 
has  grown  into  such  magnitude,  I  must  confess  that  after  renewed  investi- 
tigation,  during  which  it  has  been  my  constant  effort  to  give  due  weight 
to  the  views  of  those  who  differ  from  me,  I  feel  constrained  to  abide  by  my 
earlier  judgment,  not  excepting  even  the  Passover  question.  If  it  should 
seem  to  some  of  the  reviewers,  that  various  points  of  the  exegesis  have 
not  been  handled  sufficiently  at  large,  I  would  remark,  that  brevity  was 
an  element  of  the  original  plan  of  this  work,  and  that  consequently  the 
reader  is  not  to  look  in  it  for  such  extended  discussions  as  he  finds  in  my 
Commentaries  on  Romans  and  on  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount. 

When  I  began  to  elaborate  anew  the  three  Commentaries,  (on  the  Epistle 
to  the  Romans,  on  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  and  on  this  Gospel,)  the 
prospect  seemed  but  slight,  in  the  feeble  state  of  my  eye-sight,  that  I  should 
be  able  to  complete  them,  yet  God  has  helped  me,  and  given  me  strength  to 
carry  the  work  through.  Should  I  still  be  blessed  with  the  same  aid,  I 
shall  with  heightened  pleasure,  and  with  fresh  love  for  the  work,  enter 
on  a  continuation  of  the  preliminary  History  of  Rationalism,  in  which 
my  next  task  will  be  the  delineation  of  "the  ecclesiastical  life"  of  the 

seventeenth  century. 

A.  THOLUCK. 
July  2d,  1857. 

(^3 


[CONTENTS.^ 


Page 


Introduction — 

1.  Life  and  Character  of  John,            -        -        -  1>  5 

2.  The  Author  as  a  personal  witness,         -        -  431 

3.  Literary  Characteristics,          .        -        -        -  18 

4.  Where  and  when  he  wrote  the  Gospel,          -  9 

5.  The  Arrangement,      -,      -        -        -        -     1'^?  433 

6.  Object  and  Occasion, H 

7.  Genuineness  of  the  Gospel  on  external  grounds,  37 

8.  Genuineness  on  internal  grounds — 


1)  dlpficultt  of  habmonizinq  the  gospel  with  the  historical 

evidences  of  the  judaistic  chakacter  of  the  apostle, 

2)  Difficulty  of  harmonizing  the  Gospel  with  the  Synoptists 

ON  the  grodnd  of  history,  especially  in  the  Passoa'er 
question,  

3)  Difficulty  of  harmonizing  the  Discourses   of  Christ  in 

John  with  those  given  by  the  Synoptists, 


36 


302 


26 

9.    The  most  important  Expositors,        -        -.        -      49] 

The  Commentary, ^'^ 

Appendices, "^^^ 

I  The  arrangement  of  the  matter  differs  to  some  extent  in  the  two  editions.  To 
facilitate  comparison,  that  of  the  7th  is  given,  with  the  pages  on  which  the  matter 
will  be  found  in  the  Translation. 


INTRODUCTION. 


§  1.    Particulars  of  the  Life  of  John  the  Evangelist. 

The  father  of  the  Evangelist  was  Zebedee,  a  Galilean  fisher- 
man ;  his  mother's  name  was  Salome.  His  birth-place  was 
probably  Bethsaida,  (nyv  n'3  "fishing  place,")  a  fishing  village 
on  the  sea  of  Galilee,  the  native  place  also  of  Peter,  Andrew  and 
Philip.  This  seems  to  be  a  natural  inference  from  his  intimate 
acquaintance  with  them,  and  from  his  being  with  them.  Matt, 
iv.  18-21,  John  i.  40.  The  parents  of  John  could  not  have 
been  altogether  poor:  Zebedee  had  "hired  servants,"  Mark  i. 
20;  Salome  was  one  of  the  women  who  provided  for  the 
Saviour's  wants.  Matt,  xxvii.  56,  and  who  purchased  spices  to 
embalm  him,  Luke  xxiii.  55 ;  and  our  Saviour,  when  he  was 
dying,  commended  Mary  to  the  care  of  John,  and  requested 
him  to  take  her  elg  ra  ISia,  to  his  own  house.  That  Zebedee 
was  in  good  circumstances,  and  in  a  respectable  social  position, 
may  perhaps  also  be  inferred  from  the  fact  that  John  was 
known  by  the  high  priest,  John  xviii.  15.  Under  these  circum- 
stances, the  supposition  is  natural  that  the  Evangelist  had 
received  some  education.  He  is,  indeed,  enumerated  (Acts  iv. 
13,)  among  the  "ignorant,"  (idiojTaig,)  but  the  Pharisees  regarded 
all  persons  as  such  who  had  not  pursued  the  Rabbinic  study  of 
the  law,  all  who  were  not  cd'odh  '"I'P^i?,  pupils  of  the  Rabbins. 
It  is  probable  that  from  his  earliest  years  he  had  a  religious 
bent.  His  mother  Salome  appears  to  have  been  a  woman  of 
piety,  such  was  the  devotion  with  which  she  attached  herself 
to  Jesus ;  her  mind,  too,  was  probably  occupied  with  the 
Messianic  hopes,  as  we  infer  from  the  narrative  in  Matt.  xx. 
20,  from  which  we  gather  also  her  devoted  love  to  her  children. 

2  (1) 


2  IXTllODUCTION,    §  1. 

Such  a  mother  would  be  Hkely  to  exercise  at  an  early  period  a 
hallowed  influence  on  her  children,  and  this  would  be  fostered 
in  John  by  his  mode  of  life  as  a  fisherman,  which  often  led  him 
to  pass  the  quiet  watches  of  the  night  on  the  waters,  amid  the 
enchantments  of  a  region  resembling  that  which  encircles  the 
Lake  of  Lucerne.  (See  Seetzen  in  Winer,  lieallex.  in  the  article 
Genezareth ;  Clarke  in  Raumer's  Palastina,  2d  ed.  p.  58.) 
When,  therefore,  John  the  Baptist  made  his  appearance  and 
announced  everywhere  the  near  approach  of  the  kingdom  of 
God,  it  was  natural  that  John,  at  that  time  a  youth,  should, 
under  the  impulse  of  a  hallowed  aspiration,  attach  himself  to 
this  herald  of  Christ.  We  find  in  Theophylact  the  tradition, 
that  John's  father,  Zebedee,  was  an  uncle  of  the  Baptist.  The 
Baptist,  in  prophetic  intuition,  depicted  the  exalted  destination 
of  Jesus.  From  himself,  as  the  one  who  was  to  prepare  the 
way,  he  referred  men  to  him  who  was  the  true  light  of  the 
world.  The  docile  Disciples  turned  to  Jesus,  and  among  these, 
together  with  Andrew,  was  John,  who,  from  the  very  first 
interview,  was  so  attracted,  that  he  remained  with  the  Messiah, 
whom  he  had  now  found,  from  the  fourth  hour  of  the  afternoon 
until  in  the  night.  Nevertheless,  Jesus  did  not  at  once  take 
him  as  a  constant  companion,  though  John  probably  accom- 
panied him  for  a  few  days.  (See  on  ch.  ii.  2.)  It  was  charac- 
teristic of  the  divine  wisdom  of  the  Saviour  as  a  teacher,  that 
he  placed  the  germ  in  the  soul  and  allowed  it  little  by  little  to 
unfold  itself.  John  returned  to  his  occupation,  and  some  time 
after,  when  Jesus  was  wandering  b}^  the  sea  of  Galilee,  he  called 
to  constant  companionship  with  him  the  Disciple  whose  soul 
had  been  aroused  at  an  earlier  period,  and  the  call  was  at  once 
obeyed,  Luke  v.  10,  Matt.  iv.  21.  This  Disciple,  then,  by  the 
whole  course  of  his  life,  is  a  representative  of  that  class  of  Chris- 
tians who,  by  a  gentle  and  gradual  unfolding  of  their  inner  life, 
have  become  what  they  are,  as  Paul,  on  the  other  hand,  is  a 
representative  of  those  who  have  been  transformed  by  a  sudden 
conversion.  In  his  intercourse  with  the  Redeemer,  John  now 
revealed  such  a  tenderness  of  heart,  a  disposition  so  susceptible 
of  moulding,  an  attachment  so  profound,  as  to  render  him 
peculiarly  dear  to  Christ,  to  which  John  himself  alludes,  though 
without  mentioning  his  own  name,  John  xiii.  23,  xix.  26,  xx. 


INTRODUCTION,    §  1.  '8 

2,  xxi.  7.  It  is  evident,  too,  from  some  narrations  of  the 
Evangelists,  that  Jesus  conferred  certain  tokens  of  distinction 
on  three  of  his  Disciples,  of  whom  John  was  one.  Matt.  xvii. 
1,  xxvi.  37,  Mark  v.  37.  After  the  ascension  of  Christ,  John 
resided  in  Jerusalem,  where  Paul  finds  him  (Gal.  ii.  9,)  on  his 
third  journey,  (about  A.  D.  52,)  though  no  mention  is  made  of 
him  on  Paul's  first  visit,  (Gal.  i.  19.)  As  he  took  the  mother 
of  Jesus  to  his  own  house,  that  in  accordance  with  the  request 
of  Jesus  he  might  sustain  to  her  the  part  of  a  son,  (John  xix. 
27;)  and  as  this  house  probably  was  in  Jerusalem,  tradition  has 
drawn  the  inference  that  he  did  not  leave  Jerusalem  before 
Mary's  death,  which  according  to  Eusebius  took  place  A.  D.  48. 
This  much  is  certain,  that  John  at  the  time  when  Paul  was  in 
Ephesus,  that  is  A.  D.  58  or  59,  was  not  yet  in  that  city  which 
became  the  scene  of  his  later  labors  ;  for  not  only  would  not 
Paul  labor  in  places  which  had  been  occupied  by  others,  and 
therefore  would  not  have  intruded  upon  the  territory  occupied 
by  John,  but  besides  there  is  a  scene  (Acts  xx.  17,)  in  which 
mention  of  John  could  not  have  been  avoided,  had  he  then 
been  in  Ephesus.  When,  too,  Paul  wrote  his  Epistles  to 
Timothy  at  Ephesus,  John  was  not  there.  Yet  when  Paul 
afterward  comes  to  Jerusalem,  (Acts  xxi.  18,)  he  does  not  find 
John  there ;  his  absence,  however,  can  hardly  have  been  more 
than  temporary,  like  the  one  mentioned.  Acts  viii.  14.  The  first 
occasion  for  John's  leaving  Jerusalem  was  probably  furnished 
by  the  death  of  Paul,  as  Asia  Minor,  where  especially  the 
Christian  Churches  were  very  numerous,  but  where  also  doc- 
trinal errors  of  the  most  dangerous  character  germinated,  was 
the  very  region  to  demand  the  oversight  and  fostering  care  of 
an  Apostle.  This  would  bring  us  to  about  A.  T>.  65  or  66.  In 
Palestine,  as  we  learn  from  Gal.  ii.  9,  the  Apostle  still  had  the 
stricter  legal  tendency.  Even  the  Apocalj^pse,  at  least  rests 
decidedly  on  an  Old  Testament  back-ground,  and  several  men 
who  sprung  from  John's  school,  (if  that  expression  be  allowable,) 
Papias,  Ilegcsippus  and  L'enneus,  were  Chiliasts ;  Hegesippus, 
in  fact,  had  Ebionitish  tendencies.  As  regards  the  Easter 
festival,  .John  and  his  disciples  followed  the  Jewish  usage.  If 
we  consider  the  type  of  his  Epistles  and  Gospel  as  that  which 
is  distinctively  characteristic  of  John,  we  can  hardly  speak  with 


4  IXTIIODUCTION,    §  1. 

propriety  of  John's  school,  since  the  Letter  of  Polycarp,  the 
Epistles  of  Ignatius,  and  the  Epistle  to  Diognetus,  have  more 
points  of  accordance  with  Paul  than  with  John,  though  instances 
of  the  latter  are  by  no  means  wanting.  How  is  this  to  be 
explained  ?  ^  Liitzelberger  has  on  this  ground  denied  that  the 
Apostle  resided  in  Asia  Minor;  Schwegler  (see  §6,)  and  other 
theologians  of  the  school  of  Dr.  Baur,  are  the  more  ready  to 
receive  the  Revelation  as  the  work  of  John,  that  they  may 
regard  the  Gospels  and  Epistles  as  spurious.  This  is  a  mere 
cutting  of  the  knot.  We  may  perhaps  say,  that  what  is  charac- 
teristic of  John  does  not  in  general  find  imitators  to  the  same 
extent  as  that  which  is  distinctive  of  Paul,  (a  fact  to  which  the 
later  periods  of  the  Church  also  add  their  confirmation ;)  that 
in  addition  we  must  bear  in  mind  the  more  limited  energy  of 
this  Apostle  in  practical  life,  (even  in  Acts  iii.  6,  Peter  is  the 
one  who  speaks  and  acts ;)  that  the  Churches  in  Asia  Minor, 
moreover,  were  not  founded,  but  simply  taken  care  of,  by  him ; 
that  the  Gospel  and  Epistles  were  the  work  of  his  closing  years ; 
that  the  more  Judaizing  type  had  already  obtained  predominance 
through  the  agency  of  a  majority  of  the  other  Apostles — in  Asia 
Minor  especially,  both  Andrew  and  Philip  had  labored. 

During  the  period  of  the  labors  of  the  Evangelist  in  these 
portions  of  Asia  Minor,  he  was  banished  by  one  of  the  empe- 
rors to  Patmos,  one  of  the  islands  of  the  Sporades  in  the  u35gean 
sea,  where,  according  to  Rev.  i.  9,  he  wrote  the  Apocalypse. 
Irenseus  (Adv.  Hseres.  v.  30,)  and  Eusebius  following  him, 
(Hist.  Eccles.  1.  iii.  c.  18,)  say  that  the  Apocalyptic  vision 
was  given  to  John  at  the  end  of  the  reign  of  Domitian.  If  this 
account  may  be  credited,  (see  §  3,)  the  banishment  must  have 
occurred  under  Domitian,  (died  A.  D.  96.)  We  find  in  addition 
in  Tertullian,  (Pr£escript.  adv.  hseret.  c.  36,)  and  in  Jerome,  who 
adopts  his  statement,  (adv.  lovin.  1.  i.  c.  14,  in  Matt.  xx.  23,) 
and  in  other  writers,  an  account  of  John's  being  taken  to 
Pome  under  Domitian,  of  his  being  cast  into  a  vessel  of  boiling 
oil,  of  his  miraculous  deliverance  from  it,  and  of  his  being 
subsequently  removed  to  Patmos.  As  this  statement,  however, 
rests  on  the  authority  of  no  ancient  writer  except  Tertullian, 

1  See  p.  36. 


Introduction,  §  2.  5 

who  was  not  very  critical,  and  as  this  sort  of  capital  punish- 
ment was  unknown  in  Rome,  no  importance  can  be  attached 
to  it.  (See  Mosheim,  Dissertat.  ad  Hist.  Eccles.  vol.  i.  p.  497, 
seq.)  There  is  an  independent  testimony  that  John  suffered 
for  the  faith,  in  the  fact  that  Polycrates,  bishop  of  Ephesus, 
(about  A.  D.  200,)  calls  him  f-idprvg,  "a  martyr,"  (Euseb.  His. 
Eccles.  V.  24.)  The  return  from  exile  is  to  be  dated  under 
Nerva,  (Euseb.  His.  Eccles.  1.  iii.  c.  20,  23.  Jerome,  Catal. 
Scriptor.  Eccles.  c.  9.)  In  the  ecclesiastical  tradition  he  appears 
as  the  centre  of  the  Church-life  in  Asia  Minor,  insomuch, 
that  in  the  controversies,  as  for  example  the  one  about  Easter, 
and  in  the  struggle  with  the  Gnostics,  he  is  referred  to,  and 
frequent  mention  is  made  of  his  disciples  and  hearers.  When 
upward  of  ninety  years  of  age,  (according  to  Jerome,  he  was  a 
hundred,  according  to  Suidas,  a  hundred  and  twenty  years  old,) 
he  died  at  Ephesus,  in  the  reign  of  Trajan. 

§  2.     Character  of  John  the  Evangelist. 

If  we  connect  the  image  of  John  which  his  Gospel  and 
Epistles  give  of  their  author,  with  certain  traits  of  his  life, 
which  antiquity  has  preserved  to  us,  he  appears  to  us  as  a 
tender,  aftectionate,  rather  feminine  character — a  character 
which  already  displays  itself  in  the  diffluent  and  hovering 
recital,  and  especially  in  the  passages  where,  with  elegiac 
sadness,  he  speaks  of  the  unbelief  of  the  world;  chap.  i.  10, 
xi.  3,  xix.  32,  xii.  37.  Originally,  this  tenderness  was  not 
destitute  of  a  certain  susceptibility  to  sudden  flashes  of  anger, 
as  is  by  no  means  rarely  the  case  in  this  class  of  feminine 
dispositions;  they  are  repelled  as  vehemently  as  they  are 
attracted.  Of  this  kind  is  the  trait  recorded,  Luke  ix.  54. 
From  the  Old  Testament  point  of  view,  the  anger  of  the 
Disciple  in  the  case  we  have  alluded  to,  was  just,  for  it  was  an 
anger  directed  against  wicked  men ;  but  our  Lord  leads  him  to 
observe  that  such  a  frame  of  mind  is  not  the  proper  one  for  a 
disciple  of  the  New  Testament.  (We  must  notice  in  v.  55,  the 
position  of  the  vfietg.^)     There  is  another  aspect,  also,  in  which 

1  The  prevftlent  opinion,  that  this  incident  had  led  to  the  application  of  the  sur- 
name "sons  of  thunder,"  to  John  and  his  brother,  (Mark  iii.  17,)  is  rendered  less 
B  2* 


6  Introduction,  §  2. 

he  appears  in  the  narrative  of  the  Evangelists  in  an  unsanctified 
character.  Selfishness  reveals  itself  in  the  trait,  Mark  ix.  38, 
where  lie  utters  expressions  of  jealousy  toward  those  who, 
without  leaving  all  to  follow  Christ,  as  the  Apostles  had  done, 
had  become  partakers  in  the  power  of  working  the  miracles 
which  attended  the  Gospel.  Selfishness  also  appears,  Mark  x. 
35,  (see  Matt.  xx.  20,)  where  he  and  his  brother,  through  their 
mother,  solicit  Christ  for  an  earthly  distinction  in  the  kingdom 
of  the  Messiah.  "We  are  led,  then,  to  the  supposition  that  the 
characteristics  of  love,  humility,  and  mildness,  the  expression 
of  which  we  find  in  the  writings  of  the  Evangelist  and  in  his 
later  history,  were  the  result  of  the  renewing  grace  of  God,  of 
the  influence  of  the  spirit  of  Christ  on  the  Disciple  who  yielded 
himself  to  it.  We  must  not  forget,  however,  that  the  tender- 
ness of  John,  when  he  became  penetrated  by  the  spirit  of 
Christ,  was  in  no  sense  an  enervate  softness.  With  all  the 
difiluence  of  his  descriptions,  a  severe  moral  earnestness  reveals 
itself  in  his  Epistles:  1  John  i.  6,  iii.  9,  20,  v.  16,  2  John  10, 11. 
Polycarp  (in  Irenseus,)  mentions  a  judgment  expressed  by  John 
toward  the  close  of  his  life,  in  which  we  recognize  the  Disciple 
of  whom  Luke  ix.  54,  tells  us.  John  fled  from  a  bath  in  which 
he  found  the  heretic  Cerinthus,  saying  that  he  feared  that  it 
w^ould  fall  upon  their  heads.  We  have  also  had,  however, 
preserved  to  us  narratives,  on  which  there  is  an  impress  of  the 
character  of  love  which  reveals  itself  in  his  Gospel  and  Epistles. 
Clemens  Alexandrinus,  in  his  book,  rig  6  a(D^6iJ,evog  irXovoiog^ 
(what  rich  man  can  be  saved,)  c.  42,  narrates  the  following : 
"Listen  to  a  story,  or  rather  to  a  genuine  tradition,  of  the 
Apostle  John,  which  has  been  faithfully  treasured  in  memory. 
On  his  return  from  Patmos  to  Ephesus,  he  visited  the  neighbor- 
ing regions  to  ordain  bishops  and  organize  Churches.  While  he 
was  engaged  in  exhorting  and  comforting  the  brethren  in  a  city 

probable  ou  the  view  we  take  of  that  occurrence,  for  there  is  not  then  in  the  words 
of  Christ  an  absolute  reproof,  and  they  lose  something  of  their  severity.  The 
name,  at  least,  would  not  then  be  entirely  one  of  reproach,  but  would  merely  mark 
the  strength  of  their  natural  fervor.  [The  name  "  sons  of  thunder"  cun  have  no 
reference  to  their  eloquence;  for  at  the  time  it  was  conferred  on  them,  they  could 
not  have  given  proofs  of  their  eloquence.  The  most  natural  explanation  of  it  is 
afforded  by  their  manifestation  of  violent  emotion,  as  in  Mark  ix.  38,  Luke  ix.  54. 
(Here,  however,  the  text  is  not  settled  beyond  the  word  ETVEri/irjaev.)     7th  ed.] 

1  The  original  is  given  in  Olshausen's  Monum.  Prsecip.  i.  17-20,     (Triuial.) 


Introduction,  §  2.  7 

near  Ephesus,  whose  name  is  given  by  some,  be  noticed  a 
handsome,  spirited  young  man,  toward  whom  he  felt  himself 
drawn  so  powerfully,  that  he  turned  to  the  bishop  of  the  con- 
gregation with  the  words:  'I  commit  him  to  you,  before 
Christ  and  the  congregation,  who  are  witnesses  of  my  heartfelt 
earnestness.'  The  bishop  received  the  young  man,  promised 
to  do  all  in  his  power,  and  John,  at  parting,  repeated  the  same 
charge.  The  elder  took  the  youth  home,  educated  and  watched 
over  him,  and  finally  baptized  him.  After  he  had  given  him 
this  seal  of  the  Lord,  however,  he  abated  in  his  solicitude  and 
watchfulness.  The  young  man,  too  early  freed  from  restraint, 
fell  into  bad  company.  He  was  first  led  into  lavish  habits, 
and  finally  drawn  on  to  rob  travelers  b}^  night.  Like  a  spirited 
steed  that  springs  from  the  path,  and  rushes  madly  over  a 
precipice,  so  did  his  vehement  nature  hurry  him  to  the  abyss 
of  destruction.  He  renounced  all  hope  in  the  grace  of  God ; 
and  as  he  considered  himself  involved  in  the  same  destiny  with 
his  companions,  was  ready  to  commit  some  startling  crime. 
He  associated  them  with  himself,  organized  a  band  of  robbers, 
put  himself  at  their  head,  and  surpassed  them  all  in  cruelty 
and  violence.  Some  time  after,  John's  duties  again  called  him 
to  that  city.  When  he  had  attended  to  all  the  other  matters, 
he  said  to  the  bishop :  '  Well,  bishop,  restore  the  pledge  which 
the  Saviour  and  I  entrusted  to  thee,  in  the  presence  of  the 
congregation !'  The  bishop  at  first  was  alarmed,  supposing 
that  John  was  speaking  of  money,  and  charging  him  with 
embezzlement.  But  when  John  continued:  'I  demand  again 
that  young  man,  and  the  soul  of  my  brother,'  the  old  man 
sighed  heavily,  and  with  tears  replied:  'He  is  dead!'  'Dead?' 
said  the  Disciple  of  the  Lord;  'in  what  way  did  he  die?'  'He 
is  dead  to  God,'  responded  the  old  man;  'he  became  godless, 
and  finally  a  robber.  He  is  no  longer  in  the  Church,  but,  with 
his  fellows,  holds  the  fastnesses  of  a  mountain.'  The  Apostle, 
when  he  heard  this,  with  a  loud  cry,  rent  his  clothing  and 
smote  his  head,  and  exclaimed:  'To  what  a  keeper  have  I 
committed  my  brother's  soul!'  He  takes  a  horse  and  a  guide, 
and  hastens  to  the  spot  where  the  band  of  robbers  was  to  be 
found.  He  is  seized  by  their  outguard ;  he  makes  no  attempt 
to  escape,  but  cries  out:  'I  have  come  for  this  very  purpose. 


8  Introductiox,  §  2. 

Take  me  to  your  captain!'  Their  captain,  completely  armed, 
is  waiting  for  them  to  bring  him,  but,  recognizing  John  as  he 
approached,  flees,  from  a  sense  of  shame.  John,  nevertheless, 
forgetting  his  age,  hastens  after  him  with  all  speed,  cr^-ing : 
'  Why,  my  child,  do  you  flee  from  me — from  me,  your  father, 
an  unarmed  old  man  ?  Have  compassion  on  me,  my  child ;  do 
not  be  afraid.  You  yet  have  a  hope  of  life.  I  will  yet  give 
account  to  Christ  for  you.  If  needs  be,  I  vnll  gladly  die  for 
you,  as  Christ  died  for  us.  I  will  lay  down  my  life  for  you. 
Stop!  Believe,  Christ  hath  sent  me.'  Hearing  these  words, 
he  first  stands  still  and  casts  his  eyes  upon  the  ground.  He 
next  throws  away  his  arms,  and  commences  trembling  and 
weeping  bitterly.  When  the  old  man  approaches,  he  clasps 
his  knees,  and  with  the  most  vehement  agony  pleads  for  for- 
giveness, baptizing  himself  anew  as  it  were  with  his  own  tears : 
all  this  time,  however,  he  conceals  his  right  hand.  But  the 
Apostle,  pledging  himself,  with  an  appeal  to  God  for  his  truth, 
that  he  had  obtained  forgiveness  from  the  Saviour  for  him, 
implores  him  even  on  his  knees,  and  the  hand  he  had  held 
back  he  kisses  as  if  it  were  cleansed  again  by  his  penitence. 
He  finally  led  him  back  to  the  Church.  Here  he  pleaded  with 
him  earnestly,  strove  with  him  in  fasting,  urged  him  with 
monitions,  until  he  was  able  to  restore  him  to  the  Church — an 
example  of  sincere  repentance  and  genuine  regeneration."  To 
this  narrative  from  the  life  of  the  holy  Disciple,  which  bears  so 
strikingly  the  impress  of  his  heart,  Jerome  (Comm.  ad  Galat. 
vol.  iii.  p.  314,  Mart.')  adds  the  following  trait:  "When  John 
had  reached  his  extremest  old  age,  he  became  too  feeble  to 
walk  to  the  meetings,  and  was  carried  to  them  by  young  men. 
He  could  no  longer  say  much,  but  he  constantly  repeated  the 
words:  'Little  children,  love  one  another!'  When  he  was 
asked  why  he  constantly  repeated  this  expression,  his  answer 
was:  'Because  this  is  the  command  of  the  Lord,  and  because 
enough  is  done  if  but  this  one  thing  be  done.'  " 

At  a  recent  date,  Neander,  and  specially  Liicke,  have  designa- 
ted " vehemence  and  choler "  as  "the  individual  temperament" 
of  the  Apostle ;  but  certainly  no  other  vehemence  is  supposable 

1  Mignes  ed.  vii.  433. 


Introduction,  §  3.  9 

tliau  DUG  which  stands  to  tenderness  as  the  opposite  pole  in  the 
cue  orb  of  character.  Some  just  remarks  on  this  point  will  be 
found  in  Br.  Bauer,  Kritik  der  Evaugelischen  Geschichte  des 
Johannes,  p.  400,  f.  and  a  comprehensive  exhibition  in  From- 
mann,  Johann.  Lehrbegrift*  p.  22. 

§3.    Language,  Period  and  Place  in  which  the  Gospel  of 
John  was  composed. 

The  unanimous  testimony  of  antiquity  is,  that  the  Apostle 
wrote  his  Gospel  in  Ephesus.  "We  are  led  to  the  same  conclu- 
sion by  internal  marks,  as  for  example,  that  the  author  has  regard 
to  the  Hellenistic  Jewish  theosophy,  and  for  the  most  part  to 
readers  out  of  Palestine.  (John  ii.  6, 13,  iv.  9,  v.  1,  2.)  Another 
mark  of  the  same  kind,  is  his  skill  in  the  use  of  the  Hellen- 
istic Greek.  This  is  so  great,  when  we  compare  it  with  the 
style  of  the  Apocalypse,  that  if  the  Evangelist  John  be  the 
author  of  the  latter,  the  Gospel,  to  all  appearance,  must  have 
been  written  at  a  considerably  later  period.  According  to 
Irenseus,  adv.  haer.  v.  30,  3,  the  Apocalypse  was  seen  {eupddri) 
by  John  toward  the  end  of  the  reign  of  Domitian,  (who  died  96.) 
If  we  suppose  that  the  vision  was  committed  to  writing  about 
the  time  of  its  appearance,  it  would  fix  the  date  of  the  Apoca- 
lypse at  about  A.  D.  95 ;  if  we  now  place  the  composition  of  the 
Gospel  at  about  A.  D.  100,  (and  we  can  hardl}^  put  it  later,)  we 
shall  only  have  an  interval  of  five  years  between  the  writings,  a 
space  of  time  which  seems  too  brief  to  account  for  the  great 
diversity  in  their  language.  If  we  might,  in  accordance  with 
the  highly  plausible  internal  marks,  fix  the  time  of  writing 
the  Revelation  under  Galba,  (A.  D.  68  or  69,)  the  time  thus 
obtained  would  be  all-sufficient.  See  Dannemann,  Wer  ist  der 
Verfasser  der  Offenbarung  Johannis  ?  1841.  The  recent  investi- 
gations of  Dr.  Paulus,  Hug,  Credner,  (1841,)  have  rendered  it 
probable  that  the  Greek  language  was  extensively  used  in 
Palestine.  James  himself,  (the  brother  of  our  Lord,)  who 
never  was  out  of  his  native  land,  in  his  Epistle  writes,  com- 
paratively speaking,  good  Greek.  John,  then,  may  have  had 
some  knowledge  of  the  Greek  even  during  his  residence  in 
Jerusalem ;  if  he  was  banished  soon  after  his  entrance  on  his 


10  Introduction,  §  3. 

new  sphere  in  Asia  Minor,  he  could  at  that  time  have  had  little 
practice  in  it;  the  interval,  on  the  contrar}'^,  of  from  ten  to 
twenty  years  subsequent  to  his  return,  must  have  had  ai 
essential  influence.  (See  Tholuck's  Glaubwiirdigkeit  der  Evan 
gelischen  Geschichte.  2d  ed.  283.)  The  style  of  the  Gospel, 
too,  leaves  on  the  mind  a  general  impression  that  its  author 
was  not  a  practiced  "WTiter,  for  the  structure  of  the  sentences  is 
defective  to  a  very  unusual  degree.  As  much  as  John  falls 
below  Paul  in  this  respect,  its  solution  nevertheless  is  to  be 
found  not  so  much  in  his  want  of  practice  in  the  management 
of  language,  as  in  the  diversity  of  the  peculiar  genius  of  each; 
for  the  dialectic  mode  of  thinking  is  entirely  foreign  to  John, 
whose  turn  of  mind  appears  to  be  very  plain  and  simple. 
With  a  uniformity  which  has  few  exceptions,  his  words  arrange 
themselves  between  the  particles  de  and  ovv;  the  extent  to  which 
the  latter  is  used,  is  in  fact  quite  striking.  Such  is  the  case 
for  instance,  chap.  xix.  20,  21,  23,  24,  (twice,)  26,  29,  30, 
31,  32,  38,  40,  42.  Quite  as  common  is  the  simple  connection 
with  Kat,  iii.  14,  v.  27,  viii.  21,  49,  xvii.  11.  In  a  single  case, 
however,  we  find  o/uuf — ^iv-oi,  xii.  42,  Kairoiyey  iv.  2,  the  simple 
uevToi,  vii.  13,  xii.  42,  as  also  koc — -e,  vi.  51,  viii.  16,  17,  xv.  27, 
el  vvv — de,  ix.  41,  xviii.  36.  The  uniformity  in  the  use  of  certain 
fixed  words  and  phrases,  of  which  the  three  Epistles  especially 
present  examples,  is  no  less  to  be  referred  as  a  general  matter  to 
the  peculiarities  of  his  genius,  to  a  certain  meditative  simplicity, 
all  whose  ideas  reduce  themselves  to  a  few  comprehensive  terms, 
such  as  napTvpia,  66^a,  dh^deia,  (pcjg,  OKorog,  ^cjrj  alcjviog,  jxevEiv, 
(see  chap.  v.  37.)  Still  we  must  admit,  that  the  facility  of 
expression  in  John  falls  short  of  that  in  Paul,  and  is  indu- 
bitably below  that  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  Of  departures 
from  pure  Greek,  there  are  no  examples  which  excite  more  diffi- 
culty than  many  of  Paul's  deviations  from  classic  usage,  though 
Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccles.  vii.  44,  goes  too  far,  when  he  asserts 
that  John  wrote  d-rTTaiarug,  (without  slips  of  style.)  Of  barbar- 
isms may  be  mentioned,  tyvo^Kav  xvii.  7,  and  according  to  Cod. 
A.  D,  eojpaKEVy  also  in  v.  6,  according  to  some  MSS. ;  also 
Joh.  XV.  20,  Eixooav  for  clxov,  x^Pl^^H-'^''  ^^'^^'  ^^j  ^-j  ^o^"  X^P^t 
dXrjdLvog  iv.  37,  vii.  28,  if  we  take  it  in  the  sense  of  dXrj^rig. 
Of  solecisms,  ov  fi/j,  in  the  dependent  question,  xi.  56,  and  in 


Introduction,  §  4.  11 

the  direct  question,  xviii.  11,  iva  after  the  demonstrative,  xv. 
8,  xvii.  3,  the  Hebraistic  construction,  vii.  4,  &c.  to  which  may 
be  added  viii.  39,  if  with  Griesbach  we  read  tore  for  7/re. 

As  s}>ecimcns  of  good  Greek,  we  may  cite  the  forms  oi  ■nepl 
Mapi9av,  xi.  19,  the  use  of  vvv,  xi.  8,  -npo  ?|  -qixepm',  xii.  1, 
7/nfp,  xii.  43,  6noiog,  with  tlie  genitive,  viii.  55,  (of  wliich  there 
is  no  other  instance  in  the  jSTcw  Testament,)  'lepoaoAi/ia,  in- 
flected after  the  Greek,  while  in  the  Apocalypse  it  is  written 
'lepovoaX/jn^  &c.  As  peculiarities,  we  may  mention  the  frequent 
use  of  the  pronoun,  vi.  71,  vii.  7,  ix.  39,  the  demonstrative  with 
tva,  XV.  8,  xvii.  3,  1  John  iv.  17,  the  repetition  of  a  positive 
thought  in  a  negative  form,  i.  23,  xv.  6,  1  John  ii.  27,  2  John 
9.^  Winer  would  have  done  a  desirable  thing,  had  he  given 
in  his  Grammar  of  the  New  Testament  the  characteristics  of  the 
language  of  the  diifferent  authors ;  Llicke  has  neglected  this  in 
the  3d  ed.  of  his  John  also.  See  in  regard  to  the  mode  in  ivhich 
the  tliouglit  is  presented  in  John's  Gospel,  SeyfFarth,  Beitrag  zur 
Special  charakteristic  der  Johann.  Schriften,  Lpz.  1833;  as 
regards  the  language,  Schott,  Isagoge  in  jST.  T.  p.  150. 

The  unanimous  testimony  of  antiquity  designates  this  Gospel 
as  the  one  which  was  written  last,  a  statement  which  internal 
criteria  of  various  kinds  conspire  to  sustain.  It  already  pre- 
supposes the  synoptical  report,  (see  this  point  treated  more  at 
large  below,)  it  stands  to  the  others  in  the  relation  of  a  supple- 
ment, it  gives  us  the  discourses  of  Jesus  with  less  verbal  ex- 
actness, &c. 

§  4.    Design  and  Plan. 

In  the  question  in  regard  to  object,  we  must  distinguish  the 
general  design  from  the  subordinate  one.  Every  thing  which 
the  Gospel  history  has  recorded,  has  the  general  design  of 
extending  and  establishing  faith  in  Christ  and  his  saving 
doctrine.  With  this  view,  Luke  prepared  his  narrative  for 
Theophilus,  as  he  mentions  at  the  beginning  of  liis  Gospel. 
This  was  also  John's  general  purpose,  as  he  says  himself,  xx. 
31.     The  question  now  rises,  whether  we  are  obliged  besides 

*  To  the  peculiarities  in  the  formation  of  sentences  belong  the  construction  with 
Kai — Kai,  as  in  vi.  3G,  ix.  37,  ct  al.,  and  that  the  second  period  of  a  sentence 
embraces  more  than  the  thought  in  the  first,  v.  41,  42,  ix.  41,  xiv.  10,  1  John  i.  3. 


12  Introduction,  §  4. 

this  to  suppose  a  special  design.  This  Gospel  is  of  such  a 
nature  as  to  lead  us  readily  to  that  supposition.  It  has  through- 
out a  special  didactic  character,  ofters  a  different  circle  of  truth 
from  that  of  the  synoptical  Gospels,  and  continually  recurs  to 
it.  It  would  seem  from  this,  that  he  had  a  distinct,  heterosren- 
eous  dogmatic  tendency  to  oppose.  The  arrangement  and 
matter  of  his  history  differ  from  those  of  the  other  Evangelists 
in  respects  which  are  not  without  significance.  This  might  lead 
us  to  suppose  that  his  design  was  to  furnish  a  supplement 
to  the  other  Evangelists.  The  idea  of  a  polemical  dogmatic 
design  besides  the  general  one,  is  held  b}^  Irenseus,  (adv.  haer. 
1.  iii.  c.  12,)  who  says  it  was  John's  purpose  to  confute  the 
errors  of  the  Gnostic  Cerinthus.  Many  of  the  ancient  and 
modern  theologians  concur  in  the  view  of  this  ancient  father: 
some  of  them,  however,  suppose  a  more  general  polemical  aim 
against  Gnostic  and  Docetic  errors  at  large,  whilst  many  think 
that  they  discover  in  the  Gospel  besides  this,  a  polemical  aspect 
toward  the  sect  of  disciples  of  John  or  Zabians,  (Baptizers.) 
So  the  Socinians,  Schlichting  and  Wolzogen ;  so  too  Grotius, 
Herder,  (Erlaut.  zum  N.  T.  aus  einer  neueroffn.  morgenl. 
Quelle,  p.  11,)  Overbeck,  (I^eue  Vers.  lib.  d.  Ev.  Joh.)  who 
regard  the  aim  as  specifically  polemic  against  the  Zabians; 
besides  these,  Michaelis,  Storr,  Schmidt,  Hug,  Kleuker,  who 
regard  the  aim  as  polemic  toward  both  Gnostics  and  Zabians. 
Some,  as  for  example  Kleuker,  and  more  recently  L.  Lange, 
(Beitrage  zur  altesten  Kircheng.)  think  they  can  detect  a 
polemical  purpose  against  carnal  Judaizers.  The  most  recent 
negative  criticism  of  Liitzelberger  returns  to  the  idea  of  a 
polemic  aim  against  the  disciples  of  John  the  Baptist,  (p.  275,) 
and  that  of  Schwegler,  (see  §  6,)  which  grants  that  the  Gospel 
was  written  toward  the  end  of  the  second  centuiy,  discovers  in 
it  a  relation  partly  irenical,  partly  polemical,  toward  the  Gnosis, 
and  also  toward  Ebionism.  If  now  the  question  be,  whether 
in  the  Gospel  of  John  expressions  occur  which  can  be  employed 
in  confuting  Gnostic,  Zabian,  or  Judaic  errors,  no  one  will  deny 
it.  This,  however,  is  not  sufiicient  to  establish  a  distinctively 
polemic  aim  on  the  part  of  John,  for  a  pure  Christianity, 
constantly  and  in  its  own  nature,  is  in  conflict  with  those  errors. 
The  characteristics  of  the  Gospel  can  force  us  to  the  idea  of  an 


Introduction,  §  4.  18 

aim  so  definitely  polemic,  only  in  case  the  didactic  character 
peculiar  to  it  can  be  accounted  for  in  no  other  way  than  by 
equall}-  definite  considerations  grounded  on  the  history.  This  is, 
however,  not  the  case.  As  to  the  opinion  of  Irenteus,  it  is  well 
known  that  the  Fathers  in  their  contests  with  the  heretics  were 
ready  to  imagine  things  of  this  sort,  to  represent  the  Apostles 
as  distinctly  opposing  the  particular  heresies  of  their  day. 
Ireueeus  in  the  same  passage  maintains  that  John  designed  to 
combat  the  errors  of  the  Nicolaitans,  which  is  certainly  not  the 
case.  Irenseus,  moreover,  from  the  fact  that  several  passages 
in  John  could  be  employed  against  the  Gnostics,  might,  with- 
out being  led  to  it  by  any  historical  data,  come  to  the  conclusion^ 
that  it  was  the  distinctive  object  of  the  Evangelist  to  contravert 
the  Gnostic  views.  To  this  may  be  added,  that  those  places 
which  are  regarded  as  polemic  against  Ceriuthus,  (6  Xoyoq  aap^ 
eyivero,  &c.  Storr,  iiber  den  Zweck  des  Ev.  Joh.  §  43,  seq.) 
and  those  which  are  supposed  to  have  a  controversial  aspect 
toward  the  disciples  of  John  the  Baptist,  (John  i.  8,  iii.  28, 
seq.)  do  not  strictl}^  answer  their  polemic  intent,  as  Dr.  Paulus 
has  shown  in  his  Introd.  in  ]^.  T.  Capita  selecta,  Ieu?e,  1799 ; 
in  fact,  that  Cerinthus  might  employ  for  his  own  purposes 
certain  passages  in  John,  cf.  sayne,  p.  112.  It  cannot,  moreover, 
be  shown  at  all  that  this  polemical  character  pervades  the  whole 
Gospel.  Under  these  circumstances,  we  cannot  concede  that 
John,  in  the  composition  of  his  work,  had  a  distinct  polemic 
dogmatic  aim  before  his  eyes,  still  less  that  this  was  his  grand 
aim.  It  is,  nevertheless,  probable  that  cursorily  here  and  there, 
(xix.  34,  35,)  especially  in  the  Introduction,  he  has  an  eye  to 
erroneous  opinions  and  doubts,  which  just  at  that  time  were 
current.  (This  is  Kettberg's  view,  An  Jesus  in  Exhibenda,  etc. 
p.  9.)  It  is  natural  to  all  authors  to  have  an  occasional  regard 
of  this  sort  to  their  relations  to  their  own  times.  This  tendency 
is  more  obvious  in  John's  first  Epistle  than  in  his  Gospel, 
about  which  the  judgment  of  Liicke,  in  his  Introduction  to  the 
first  Epistle  of  John,  is  very  just. 

If  there  be  then  no  pervading  controversial  aim,  did  John 
perhaps  design  to  place  his  Gospel  in  a  definite  relation  to  the 
other  Gospels  ?  He  might  have  intended  to  present  a  more 
Bpiritual  delineation  of  the  doctrine  and  life  of  the  Saviour. 


14  Introduction,  §4. 

This  thought  readily  occurs  to  him  who  has  been  attracted  by 
the  wonderfully  sublime  simplicity,  and  the  heavenly  gentle- 
ness, which  pervade  this  whole  work,  as  well  as  by  the  many 
expressions  in  regard  to  the  higher  nature  of  Christ.  The 
Alexandrine  writers,  who  generally  embrace  the  idea  that  there 
is  a  twofold  spiritual  point  of  view  existing  among  Christians, 
express  this  thought.  Clemens,  in  a  fragment  (preserved  by 
Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccl.  1.  vi.  c.  14,)  of  his  lost  vnorv-rrojaei^,  says: 
Tov  [livroL  ^ludvvrjv  eoxO'TOV  owtdovra,  on  to,  OMiiariKa  iv  rdtg 
evayyeXioig  deSriXuTai,  TTpoTpanevra  v-no  tg3v  yvcopifiuv,  7rvevjj.aTL 
"deo^oprjdevTa,  TrvevfiaTiicbv  TTOirjaai  evayyeXiov.  "But  John,  last 
of  all,  perceiving  that  what  had  reference  to  the  bodily,  was 
sufficiently  detailed  in  the  Gospels,  encouraged  by  his  friends, 
and  divinely  incited  by  the  Spirit,  composed  a  spiritual  Gos- 
pel." Of  the  same  stamp  the  earlier  view  of  Liicke  was, 
that  the  first  three  Gospels  were  to  be  regarded  as  proceeding 
from  the  position  of  the  Triang,  (faith,)  that  of  John  from  the 
position  of  the  yvdaig,  (knowledge.)  (Comm.  1st  ed.  Thl.  i. 
p.  160,  seq.)  Since  in  addition  John  generally  recounts  those 
discourses  and  miracles  of  Christ  which  are  not  mentioned  by 
the  other  Evangelists,  many  writers,  both  ancient  and  modern, 
have  supposed  that  John  had  a  general  purpose  of  completing 
the  earlier  Gospels,  especially  of  supplying  what  was  wanting 
in  their  delineation  of  the  divine  in  Christ,  {rrjv  ■&eoXoyiav.)  This 
is  the  view  of  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccl.  1.  iii.  c.  24,  and  also  of 
Theodore  of  Mopsuestia  in  the  Catena  in  Ev.  loh.  ed.  Corder. 
Antv.  1630  :  dA/l'  oi  trfpl  rrjv  'Aaiav  ttcgtoI  d^ioncaroTepov  riov 
XoLTtuv  eig  ttjv  tov  evayyeXtov  iiaprvpiav  ^Icddvvrjv  Kplvavreg  elvai 
TOV  fiaKapiov,  TcpoorjveyKav  jxev  avrio  Tag  (ii(3Xovg,  [xadelv  j'jv  Tcva 
Trepl  avTujv  ex^l  ttjv  do^av  jtap  avTOv  (3ovX6iievoi.  'O  6e  in'^veoe 
jiEV  TTJg  dX7]-&elag  Tovg  yeypacpoTag,  e(p7]oe  6e  jSpaxeo,  fxiv  avrolg 
TTapaXeXelcp'&ai,  Koi  riHv  ndXiOTa  dvayKaio)V  Xex'drjvai  davfidruv  to, 
diSaOKaXiKd  anavra  fiiKpov.  Eira  kcu  SeIv  EcjiaoKe  rovg  Trepl  Trig  ^^ 
oapKL  TTapovoiag  tov  XfiiOTOv  diaXEyoiiivovg  firjSe  TOvg  Trepl  Trjg  dEOTriTog 
Xoyovg  napaXinelv  ktX.  "When  the  believers  in  Asia  judging 
St.  John  to  be  the  most  credible  of  all  witnesses,  solicited 
him  to  write  the  history  of  Jesus,  and  laid  before  him  the  other 
Gospels  to  have  his  judgment  upon  them,  he  pronounced  them 
all  to  be  truthful  records  ;  but  said  that  some  miracles  of  a  very 


Introdictiox,  §  4.  15 

instructive  character  were  omitted.  lie  said,  besides,  that  the 
facts  about  the  deity  of  Christ  should  be  written  as  well  as  those 
that  related  to  his  appearing  in  the  flesh,  &e."  Jerome,  also, 
(Catal.  de  vir.  illustr.  c.  9,)  speaks  of  the  historic  design  of 
furnishing  a  complement  to  the  other  Evangelists.  So  likewise 
Storr,  Hug,  Feilmoser.  The  contrast  in  question  to  wit :  that 
the  fourth  Gospel  is  more  pneumatic  than  the  others,  certainly 
belongs  to  a  later  period,  which  reflected  from  its  own  point  of 
view  on  the  two  classes  of  records.  The  Apostle  himself  would 
in  all  probability  have  judged  in  the  matter  as  Herder  does, 
vom  Gottessohn  nach  Johannes,  p.  34 :  "If  you  insist  on  calling 
this  a  Gospel  of  the  Spirit,  be  it  so,  but  the  other  Gospels  are 
not  therefore  fleshly.  They  also  contain  living  words  of  Christ, 
and  build  on  the  same  foundation  of  faith."  The  object  of 
completing  the  three  synoptical  Gospels  which  we  have,  cannot, 
then,  in  this  specific  sense  be  admitted.  That  this  cannot  have 
been  the  grand  design,  is  shown  by  the  unity  of  form  in  the 
Gospel;  "this  Gospel,"  says  Hase,  "is  no  mere  patchwork  to 
fill  up  vacant  spaces  ;"  and  not  even  as  a  distinct  subordinate 
pui'pose  kept  in  view  by  the  Evangelist  throughout,  can  we 
perceive  a  design  of  filling  out  what  had  been  omitted  by  the 
others.  It  is  in  conflict  with  such  a  view,  in  fact,  that  so  much 
has  been  embraced  in  the  fourth  Gospel  which  is  also  found  in 
the  first  three ;  that  not  a  few  of  at  least  apparent  contradictions 
to  them  occur,  which  might  have  been  harmonized ;  that,  on  the 
other  hand,  the  apparent  contradictions  between  the  synoptical 
Gospels  themselves  are  not  cleared  up ;  that  at  chap.  xx.  30,  some 
statement  of  this  aim  might  justly  be  looked  for;  and  finally, 
that  to  embrace  this  view  strictly,  would  force  us  to  think  of  a 
literary  assiduity  of  a  comparatively  modern  stamp.  In  addition, 
at  that  period  the  Churches  were  acquainted  with  the  history 
of  our  Lord  less  from  the  written  records  of  the  three  Evan- 
gelists than  from  tradition.  N^evertheless,  there  is  some  truth 
lying  at  the  bottom  of  this  theor^^  If  John  in  his  instructions 
imparted  much,  w^hich  passed  beyond  the  circle  of  the  ordinary 
oral  tradition,  and  consequently  beyond  the  synoptical  Gospels 
which  flowed  from  it,  we  can  hardly  think  otherwise  than  that 
among  his  friends  a  longing  would  be  excited  to  possess  a 
history  of  the  Lord  in  accordance  with  Ids  delineation.     If  he 


16  Introduction,  §4. 

yielded  to  this  desire,  his  work  must  of  itself  take  the  charac- 
ter of  a  complement,  and  only  thus  can  we  account  for  it,  that 
so  many  significant  facts  are  passed  over,  such  as  the  baptism 
of  Jesus  by  John,  the  temptation  in  the  wilderness,  the  trans- 
figuration, the  institution  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  the  agony  in 
Gethsemane.  That  the  reader  is  presupposed  to  he  familiar  with 
the  ordinary  traditional  circle,  is  very  clear  from  chap.  iii.  24,  xi. 
2,  and  also  from  i.  32.^  (See  Hug's  Introduction,  ii.  §  53.)  If 
he  has,  notwithstanding,  given  partly  in  a  similar  way  with  the 
others,  large  portions,  as  for  example  the  history  of  the  Passion 
and  Resurrection,  this  is  not  to  be  wondered  at,  for  without 
these  no  Gospel  could  be  written ;  nevertheless,  John  maintains 
his  o^vn  peculiar  character  in  this  division  of  his  work.  Besides, 
the  only  passages  that  coincide  with  the  synoptical  Gospels  are 
chap.  vi.  1-21,  and  xii.  1.  The  historical  portion  in  chap.  vi.  is 
connected  with  the  discourse  that  follows,  although  it  may  have 
also  been  introduced  on  account  of  the  miracle ;  the  narrative, 
xii.  1,  may  be  introduced  on  account  of  the  trait  it  presents  of 
Judas,  of  whose  deed  of  blackness  John  designs  to  give  a 
history  in  which  results  are  traced  to  their  causes.  This  view 
of  the  origin  of  the  Gospel,  so  natural  in  itself,  is  confirmed  by 
the  Ecclesiastical  Tradition  :  the  account  quoted  above  from 
Clement  is  expressly  referred  by  him  to  the  tradition  of  the 
dveKadev  -npea^vTepoL,  (the  earliest  presbyters.)  The  intimation 
of  the  Apostle  himself,  chap.  xx.  30,  31,  serves  at  least  to  show, 
that  out  of  the  mass  of  material  which  lay  before  him,  he  had 
made  a  selection  with  distinct  objects  in  view — what  they  were 
he  does  not  tell  us. 

If  he  made  a  selection,  the  question  arises,  whether  he  merely 
intended  to  present  something  more,  or  whether  this  additional 
matter  is  placed  under  some  definite  point  of  view  also.  The 
earlier  period  reflected  little  about  the  literary  character  of  the 
Gospels ;  the  most  recent,  especially  in  the  Criticism  of  Dr.  Baur 
and  his  followers,  has  carried  this  tendency  to  extremes.  Since 
Strauss  especially,  they  find  throughout  this  pseudonymous  Gos- 
pel, as  they  regard  it,  the  most  ob\dous  intent,  the  most  distinct 

^  Add  to  these  xiii.  27,  xviii.  2,  (where  the  concerting  of  Judas  with  the  council  is 
presupposed,)  xviii.  19,  (where  the  chief  point  in  the  hearing  before  Caiophas  is 
xinnotlced,)  xix.  7,  xxi.  15. 


Introduction,  §4.  17 

designs  and  categories,  to  which  the  discourses  and  histories 
are  adapted,  the  following  up  of  a  distinct  plan,  even  to  the 
minutest  detail.  The  result  naturally  is:  that  to  the  degree  to 
which  we  impute  this  reflective  plan  to  the  pseudonymous 
writer,  we  detract  from  his  historic  trutlifulness.  Bruno  Bauer 
proceeds,  most  of  all,  in  an  arbitrary,  irrational  manner.  After 
returning  from  the  perusal  of  these  recent  critics,  we  feel  afraid 
that  we  shixll  read  the  Evangelist  with  confused  eyes — as  Liicke 
(Comm.  i.  p.  183,)  says,  "  will  put  meanings  into  him  that  he 
never  had."  Especially  has  criticism  directed  attention  to  the 
fact,  that  this  Evangelist  has  made  it  his  business  to  depict 
Jesus  in  constant  conflict  with  the  Jewish  oflicials.  Since  this 
has  been  brought  before  the  eye,  those  also  who  acknowledge 
the  authenticity  of  John,  as  for  example  Liicke  in  his  3d  ed. 
(see  De  Wette,)  have  obtained  new  insight  iuto  the  composition 
of  the  Gospel.  "We,  too,  feel  free  to  aflirm  that  from  its  very 
commencement  the  Gospel  pursues  this  theme:  The  eternal 
conjiict  between  the  divine  light  and  the  corruption  of  men,  exhibited 
in  the  opposition  hetiveen  the  inimical  Jewish  party  and  the  appear- 
ing of  the  Son  of  Crod,  and  protracted  until  the  light  is  victorious 
As  the  overture  expresses  the  idea  of  a  musical  composition,  so 
the  very  Prologue  embodies  this  theme,  for  it  speaks  of  the 
contest  of  the  world  with  the  Logos  before  he  became  flesh; 
and  as  the  theme  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  lies  in  chap,  i. 
17,  so  the  idea  which  animates  the  Gospel  of  John  is  expressed 
in  chap.  i.  11-13.  Two  main  divisions  even  of  an  outward 
character  undoubtedly  present  themselves.  The  first,  to  chap, 
xii.  embraces  the  Public  Work  of  Jesus,  and  closes  with  a  resume 
of  it,  V.  4-1-50.  For  the  second  division,  the  History  of  the 
Passion  and  Resurrection,  we  are  prepared  by  the  discourse  of 
Jesus,  chap.  xii.  23-32,  in  which  the  leading  thought  is :  the 
setting  of  the  sun  is  necessary,  for  without  it  there  can  be  no 
rising.  Chapter  xiii.  begins  the  History  of  the  Passion,  and  at 
the  outstart,  as  it  were,  v.  3,  the  Disciple  points  to  the  final 
glory.  The  exclamation  of  Thomas:  "My  Lord  and  my  God," 
the  sublimest  acknowledgment  of  the  risen  Saviour,  closes  the 
second  part,  and  by  the  words  to  which  it  leads :  "Blessed  are 
they  that  have  not  seen,  and  yet  have  believed,"  forms  the 
transition  to  the  closing  expression :  "  These  are  written,  that 

8* 


18  Introduction,  §  5. 

ye  might  believe  tbat  Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God."  In  the  first 
main  division  is  delineated  the  gradual  rise  of  the  opposition  of 
the  Jewish  rulers  up  to  the  decisive  event  of  the  resurrection  of 
Lazarus,  and  the  open  outbreak  of  their  hatred  which  followed. 
This  recital  closes  with  the  official  judgment  of  Caiaphas,  chap, 
xi.  50,  and  involuntarily  his  decree  becomes  a  prophecy  of  the 
significance  of  Christ's  death.  At  an  earlier  period  the  religious 
pragmatism  [disposition  to  exhibit  the  causes,  relations  and 
results  of  events.  Tr.]  had  been  noticed  in  the  Gospel,  that 
John  everywhere  sees  a  divine  connection,  and  now  and  then 
refers  to  that  course  of  providence  which  at  time  lingers,  at 
others  rushes  on,  chap.  vii.  30,  viii.  20,  xiii.  1.  In  our  view  of 
the  plan  of  the  work,  these  intimations  appear  not  simply  as  the 
casual  eff'usions  of  a  religious  spirit,  but  as  designed  to  subserve 
John's  aim  as  a  writer ;  nevertheless,  we  are  decidedly  under 
the  conviction,  that  the  history  presented  itself  after  this  form 
to  the  Evangelist  as  he  wrote  it,  and  not  as  the  result  of  previous 
reflection.  Had  such  a  plan  been  before  the  eyes  of  the  Apostle 
from  the  beginning  as  a  scheme  of  which  he  was  conscious, 
would  he  not  have  expressed  it  in  that  closing  formula,  chap. 
XX.  31,  where  the  Evangelist  has  reached  the  end  of  his  recital  ? 

§  5.     Contents  and  Form  of  John's   Gospel  as  compared 

WITH   THE   first   THREE    GoSPELS. 

"With  reference  to  its  contents  and  form,  this  Gospel  is 
throughout  peculiar,  and  in  this  peculiarity  lie  a  charm  and  a 
power  of  attraction,  which  have  not  only  caused  it  to  be  pre- 
ferred to  the  other  Gospels,  but  have  led  many  to  rank  it  above 
all  other  books  of  the  Bible.  [This  Gospel  speaks  a  language, 
to  which  no  parallel  whatever  is  to  be  found  in  the  whole  compass 
of  literature ;  such  childlike  simplicity,  with  such  contemplative 
profundity;  such  life  and  such  deep  rest;  such  sadness  and 
such  serenity;  and  above  all,  such  a  breath  of  love — "an 
eternal  life  which  has  already  dawned,  a  life  which  rests  in 
God,  which  has  overcome  the  disunion  between  the  world  that 
is  and  the  world  to  come,  the  human  and  the  divine."  (Hase, 
Kircheng.  p.  39,  7th  ed.  translated  by  Blumenthal  &  Wing, 
New  York,  1855.)    If  we  cast  our  eyes  over  the  whole  body  of 


Introduction,  §  5.  19 

religious  literature,  tliere  is  certainly  uone  whom  we  would 
feel  tempted  to  place  by  John's  side,  unless,  perhaps,  it  were 
Thomas  ii-Kempis;  yet  such  a  comparison  would  involve  as 
complete  a  mistake,  as  to  place  in  parallel  the  simplicity  of 
Xenophou  with  that  of  Plato.  In  the  Apostolic  men,  cited 
as  scholars  of  John,  in  Polycarp,  Ignatius,  the  author  of  the 
Epistle  to  Diognetus,  there  are,  indeed,  here  and  there,  tones 
of  assonance  with  John,  but  not  the  touch  of  John's  pencil, 
while  to  Paul  so  many  parallels,  even  besides  Luther,  present 
themselves.]  All  the  leaders  of  the  voice  of  the  Church  have 
been  full  of  its  praises.  Chrysostom  (Prooem.  in  Ilom.  in  loh.) 
writes  thus :  ec  ok  pr^zopixcou  auXr^zcxcov  re  xal  d&?.rjZ(xcou  dudywu, 
Tcou  fxsu  &eazaly  zcov  dh  bjiou  ^scoftr^zal  xal  dxpoazal  ixzzd  zoaa:jzr^(^ 
xdd-r^vzac  zyj^  Tzpo^ufxia!;,  Ttoffrjv  i^/jiiv  xal  otioooy^v  xal  -Tipo&oiiiav  dv 
el'r^zs  ocxacoi  rzapaa'^sTu,  obx  abXrjzrxob  zivo;;,  ouos  aocpcazixou  vuv  ere 
dfco)ja  xa&tivzo:;^  dXX  dv8pd^  dzb  zcov  obpavcou  (p^syyo/jieuoo,  xal 
^povzr^i;  lapTzpozipav  dipcevzoc^  ipcovjv  ;  Ttdaav  yap  ztjv  oixou iiivTjV 
i~iayt  xal  xazika^e,  xal  IviTzXrjat  zfj  j^ofj,  ou  zw  fikya  d'^axpaysTu, 
d/J.d  zuj  fitzd  rijc  ^t'la^  -ydpczo:;  xcvr^aac  zr^v  yXcozzau.  xal  zb  8tj 
■d^a'jjxaazbv^  ozi  oiizco  pttydX-^  ouaa  q  j3or]  oox  iazc  zpayttd  zc<;,  ouds 
dr^or^^,  d?2d  Tzdar^;;  ptouaix/^^  dppiopca^  ijoicov  xal  Tto&eivozipa  xal 
^s/.^a:  IzcazapiuYj  ttXJov'  xal  7:pb^  zouzoi^  drcaacu  dytcozdzrj  xal 
(ppixcooeazdzr^y  xal  zoaoozcov  yipooaa  d~oppr^zo)v^  xal  xoawjza 
xopii^ouda  dyad^d,  d  zoh^,  pszd  dxpc^tia^  xal  Tipod-upLiac.  Xa^bvza:^  xal 
dca(fv)Azzovza;;  obx  sue  X.octtou  du&pcoTrou/^  eluac,  oudk  IttI  zrj^  yrj<; 
fjLSUscv,  dXK  duQJzipa)  Tzduzcop  kazdvac  zcov  j^ccozcxcou,  xal  Tzpb;;  zr^v 
dyytXcxTjV  fiz&apno/Tajiiuouz  Xr^^tv  xa&aTitp  zbv  obpavbv^  ouzco  ztjv 
y7^v  olxzlv.  "  If  the  spectators  of  the  Athletes,  or  those  who  are 
at  once  auditors  and  spectators,  of  rhetoricians  and  pipers,  sit 
with  so  great  readiness ;  what  readiness  and  earnestness  does  it 
become  you  to  manifest,  when  you  are  summoned  to  the 
spectacle,  not  by  a  piper,  not  by  a  sophist,  but  by  a  man  who 
speaks  from  heaven  and  emits  a  voice  clearer  than  thunder? 
lie  has  pervaded  and  embraced  the  Avhole  world,  he  has  filled 
it  with  his  cry,  not  by  the  greatness  of  the  sound,  but  by  a 
tongue  moved  by  divine  grace.  And  what  is  wonderful,  is 
that  this  great  cry  is  not  harsh,  not  destitute  of  sweetness,  but 
t^wceter  and  more  charming,  endowed  with  more  power  to 
nttract  than  all  the  harmony  of  music :  and  besides  all  these,  it 


20  Introduction,  §  5. 

is  most  holy  and  awe-inspiring,  filled  with  such  secrets,  con- 
veying such  good  things,  that  those  who  receive  and  guard  it 
with  diligence  and  earnestness,  are  no  longer  men,  no  more 
abide  upon  earth;  they  have  placed  themselves  above  the 
things  of  time,  they  are  partakers  of  the  state  of  angels,  and 
thus  dwell  upon  earth,  as  if  it  were  heaven."  In  a  similar 
manner  Augustine  (Tract.  36,  in  lohan.)  declares :  in  quatuor 
evangeliis  seu  potius  in  quatuor  lihris  unius  evangelii  sanctus 
loJiannes  apostolus,  non  immerito  secundum  intelligentiam  spirit- 
alem  aquilm  comparatus,  altius  multoque  suhlimius  aliis  tribus 
erexit  prcedicationem  suain,  et  in  eius  erectione  etiani  corda  nostra 
erigi  voluit.  Nam  cceteri  tres  evangelistce  tanquam  cum  homine 
Domino  in  terra  ambulahant,  de  divinitate  eius  pauca  dixerunt^ 
ipsum  autem  quasi  piguerit  in  terra  ambulare,  sicut  ip)So  exordio 
sui  sermonis  intonuit,  erexit  se  non  solum  super  terram  et  super 
omnem  ambitum  ceris  et  coeli,  sed  super  omnem  etiam  exercitum 
angelorum,  omnemque  constitutionem  invisibilium  potestatum,  et 
pervenit  ad  eum,  per  quern  facta  sunt  omnia,  dicendo :  In  prin- 
cipio  erat  verbum,  etc.  JTuic  tantce  sublimitati  principii  etiam 
ccetera  congrua  prcedicavit,  et  de  Domini  divinitate  quomodo  nullus 
alius  est  locutus.  Soe  ructabat  quod  biberat.  Non  enim  sine 
causa  de  isto  in  illo  ipso  Evangelio  narratur,  quia  et  in  convivio 
super  pectus  Domini  discumbebat.  De  illo  ergo  pectore  in  secreto 
hibebat,  sed  quod  in  secreto  bibit,  in  inanifesto  eructavit.  "In  the 
four  Gospels,  or  rather  in  the  four  books  of  the  one  Gospel,  the 
Apostle  St.  John,  not  undeservedly  with  reference  to  hi  a 
spiritual  understanding  compared  to  an  eagle,  has  lifted  higher 
and  far  more  sublimely  than  the  other  three  his  proclamation, 
and  in  lifting  it  up  he  has  wished  our  hearts  also  to  be  lifted. 
For  the  other  three  Ev^angelists  walked,  so  to  speak,  on  earth 
with  our  Lord  as  man,  of  his  divinity  they  said  but  few  things, 
but  John,  as  if  it  oppressed  him  to  walk  on  earth,  has  opened 
his  words  as  it  were  with  a  burst  of  thunder,  has  lifted  himself 
not  onl}^  above  earth  and  every  sphere  of  sky  and  heaven,  but 
even  above  every  host  of  angels,  and  every  order  of  invisible 
powers,  and  reaches  to  Him  by  whom  all  things  were  made,  as 
he  says :  '  In  the  beginning  was  the  word,'  &c.  He  proclaims 
other  things  in  keeping  with  this  great  sublimity  with  which  he 
begins,  and  speaks  of  the  divinity  of  our  Lord  as  no  other  person 


Intkoduction,  §  5.  21 

has  spoken.  lie  pours  forth  that  into  which  he  liad  drunk. 
For  not  without  a  reason  is  it  mentioned  in  his  own  Gospel, 
that  at  the  feast  he  reclined  upon  the  bosom  of  his  Lord.  From 
that  bosom  he  had  in  secresy  drunk  in  the  stream,  but  what  he 
drank  in  secret  he  poured  forth  openly."  And  Origen  (Comm. 
p.  6,  ed.  Huet,)  says :  ToXmziov  zoiyju  d-ztv  aizapfriu  yikv  Tzaacov 
Ypacpoiv  Zivat  xa  zhayjiha^  zwv  ok  vjayyeUcov  ar.apyr^v  to  xaza 
^Icodvur^y  oh  rbv  poou  oijosc^  o'jvazac  Xa^itlv  jirj  duaztawv  izc  zv  az7j9o^ 
^Jr^adb  .  .  xai  zr^?.cxoi)TOU  dk  yzvea&ac  dec  zbv  iao/xevov  dkXov  'Iwavvjyv^ 
&aze  olovti  zou  'Iwccvviyv  dtf^&r^vat  ovza  ^Ir^aow  a.7tb  ^lyjaou.  "  We 
may  presume  then  to  sa}'-  that  the  Gospels  are  the  first  fruits  of 
all  the  Scriptures,  and  the  first  fruits  of  the  Gospels  is  that  of 
John,  into  whose  meaning  no  man  can  enter,  unless  he  has 
reclined  upon  the  bosom  of  Jesus,  .  .  he  must  become  a  second 
John,  and  take  John  as  a  Jesus  from  Jesus."  (Origen  means 
to  say,  the  expositor  must  so  enter  into  the  spirit  of  John,  that 
John,  as  one  filled  by  Jesus,  appears  as  the  counterpart  of 
Jesus  himself.)  The  devout  Ernesti  styles  this  Gospel,  the  heart 
of  Christ.  Herder  exclaims :  "  It  is  written  by  the  hand  of  an 
angeh" 

This  impression  is  a  result  as  well  of  the  literary  form  of  the 
Gospel  as  of  its  substance.  As  regards  the  substance,  it  is 
more  detached  from  special  Jewish  references  than  the  others, 
and  appeals  in  a  more  lively  manner  to  the  sensibilities  than  do 
the  instructions  mostly  bearing  on  practical  life,  which  are 
recorded  in  the  synoptical  Gospels.  The  superhuman  in  Christ, 
the  necessity  of  faith  in  him,  regeneration,  the  mystical  union 
of  believers  with  him  and  with  one  another,  the  commandment 
of  love  and  the  blessing  attached  to  it,  these  are  the  chief 
themes  of  John's  teaching,  and  many  of  the  facts  recorded  by 
him  and  peculiar  to  his  Gospel,  correspond  with  them ;  among 
these  are  presented  the  condescending  love  of  Christ,  shown  in 
his  seeking  men,  his  tender  i elation  as  a  man  to  John,  his 
position  of  earnestness  yet  of  forbearance  toward  his  betrayer, 
his  superhuman  knowledge,  his  glorification  in  suffering,  and 
the  obstinate  unbelief  of  the  world.  To  this  substance,  the 
peculiar  character  of  the  author's  spirit  impressing  itself  on  the 
language,  has  imparted  a  form  which  enlists  the  sensibilities  in 
a  high  degree.     The  noble  simplicity  on  the  one  side,  on  the 


22  Introduction,  §  5. 

other,  the  hovering  nature  and  the  dim  mystery  of  the  narra- 
tion, the  tone  of  grief  and  of  longing,  with  the  light  of  love 
shedding  its  tremulous  beam  on  the  whole,  these  impart  to  the 
Gospel  a  charm,  a  peculiar  originality,  to  which,  out  of  the 
writings  of  John,  no  parallel  can  be  found.  To  these  is  to  be 
added,  the  plastic  power  of  the  narrative  to  bring  its  scenes 
vividly  before  the  eye ;  the  localities  arc  fully  marked,  chap.  1. 
28,  iv.  5,  V.  2,  vi.  59,  x.  23— the  dates,  iv.  6,  v.  9.  vi.  4,  vii.  2— 
personal  traits,  xi.  5,  xii.  29,  xviii.  10,  vii.  25 — manners,  ii.  6, 
iv.  9,  xviii.  39,  xix.  31 — gestures  and  passions,  xviii.  6,  viii.  11, 
35,  38.  The  fact  too,  that  Christ's  discourses  rather  than  out- 
ward occurrences,  are  given  at  large,  that  the  Disciple  not  only 
stands  before  the  history  of  the  Lord,  but  in  it  and  over  it,  and, 
as  is  the  method  in  every  work  of  art,  reproduces  it  from  a 
noble  subjectivity,  and  accompanies  it  with  remarks  of  his  own, 
(ii.  21,  iii.  16,  31,  vi.  64,  vii.  39,  x.  6,  xii.  33  and  35-50,  xix. 
35,  XX.  30,  31,)  contributes  to  impart  to  this  delineation  a  life 
and  vivifying  character  beyond  that  of  the  other  Evangelists. 
The  sense  of  the  first  mentioned  peculiarities  has  been  ex- 
pressed in  a  manner  singularly  striking  by  Claudius :  (Wands- 
becker  Bote,  Th.  i.  p.  9,  A.)  "I  love  best  of  all  to  read  in  St. 
John.  There  is  in  him  something  so  perfectly  wonderful — dusk 
and  night,  and  the  quick  lightning  throbbing  through  them! 
The  soft  clouds  of  evening,  and  behind  the  mass  the  big  full 
moon  bodily ! — something  so  sad,  so  high,  so  full  of  presage,  that 
one  can  never  weary  of  it.  When  I  read  John,  it  always  seems 
to  me  that  I  see  him  before  me,  reclining  at  the  Last  Supper  on 
the  bosom  of  his  Lord,  as  if  his  angel  held  the  light  for  me,  and 
at  certain  parts  would  place  his  arm  around  me,  and  whisper 
something  in  my  ear.  I  am  far  from  understanding  all  I  read, 
yet  often  John's  idea  seems  to  hover  before  me  in  the  distance ; 
and  even  when  I  look  into  a  place  that  is  entirely  dark,  I  have  a 
preseusion  of  a  great,  glorious  sense,  which  I  shall  some  day 
understand,  and  hence  I  catch  so  eagerly  at  every  new  exposition 
of  the  Gospel  of  John.  'Tis  true — most  of  them  only  ruffle  the 
evening  clouds,  and  never  trouble  the  moon  behind  them." 
What  is  said  of  him,  who  learned  from  the  tender,  gentle 
disciple  of  love  himself,  thus  to  depict  him,  what  is  said  of 
Claudius  by  Hamann,  might  have  been  written  of  the  Gospel  of 


Introduction,  §  5.  23 

the  disciple  of  love :  "  On  thy  harp  rests  a  light  ethereal  essence, 
which,  even  when  the  strings  have  ceased  to  tremble,  moves 
in  waves  at  freedom  in  the  air,  and  fills  the  heart  with  gentle 
sadness." 

Precisely  these  peculiarities,  nevertheless,  in  the  substance 
and  form  of  the  Gospel,  which  have  excited  the  praises  of  the 
leading  spirits  of  all  ages,  have  furnished  the  points  on  which 
in  recent  times  the  most  formidable  attacks  have  been  made 
on  its  genuineness  and  authenticity.  The  more  widely  the 
fourth  Gospel  deviates  from  the  type  of  the  first  three,  the  more 
diverse  the  history  and  the  discourses  both  in  form  and  sub- 
stance; the  more  readily  could  doubt  be  excited,  first,  of  its 
authenticity,  and  then  of  its  genuineness.  But  even  if  the 
latter  be  left  at  rest,  the  former  may  be  shaken.  If  we  reflect, 
for  example,  first  on  the  strong  impress  of  subjectivity  in  this 
delineation  of  the  life  of  Christ,  in  the  arrangement  of  the 
work  and  the  order  of  the  matter  in  general,  and  especially  in 
the  relation  of  the  discourses ;  if  we  call  to  mind  the  late  period 
at  which  it  was  consigned  to  writing — more  than  forty  years 
after  the  events ;  if  we  remember  that  this  same  John,  when 
Paul  met  with  him  in  Jerusalem,  (Gal.  ii.  9,)  appears  as  a 
Judaist,  while  the  Gospel  occupies  a  thoroughly  free  position ; 
if  we  consider  especially  the  great  afiinity  between  John's 
diction  in  his  Epistles  and  that  of  Christ's  discourses  in  his 
Gospel,  3'ea,  that  it  seems  as  though  the  Evangelist  had  even 
put  his  own  words  into  the  mouth  of  the  Baptist^  (ch.  i.  16,  iii. 
31,)  must  we  not  come  to  the  conclusion,  that  if  John  may  be 
regarded  in  a  general  way  as  its  author,  his  Gospel  is  for  the 
most  part  a  free  product  of  the  imagination  in  the  latter  years 
of  his  life,  when  the  remembrance  of  events  that  had  occurred, 
and  of  discourses  he  had  heard  more  than  forty  years  before, 
had  grown  faint,  while  in  the  meantime,  in  the  circle  of 
Asia  Minor,  with  its  Hellenistic  culture  and  Gnostic  influences, 
a  freer,  more  ideal  mode  of  contemplation  had  been  aroused  in 
the  Disciple?  Recently  Schweizer  (das  Ev.  Joh.  nach  sein. 
inn.'Werth.  u.  nach  sein.  Bed.  krit.  unters. — the  Gospel  of  John 
critically  examined  as  to  its  internal  value  and  meaning,  p. 
239,  seq.)  has  instituted  an  examination  of  those  events,  in 
which  we  may  regard  the  Apostle  as  seeing  or  hearing  for 


24  Introductiox,  §  5. 

himself,  and  those  in  which  he  could  not  have  been  present, 
but  must  have  received  his  information  through  another 
medium,  as  for  example  the  conversation  with  Nicodemus,  the 
one  with  the  woman  of  Samaria,  the  scene  in  the  Sanhedrim, 
the  hearing  before  Pilate,  kc,  and  this  examination  also  leads 
to  a  relative  uncertainty  of  the  detail.  What  can  stand  as 
historic  after  all  the  deductions  which  must  ensue  from  this 
process,  is  the  total  to  which,  in  De  "Wette's  judgment,  the 
authentic  in  the  Gospel  is  reduced,  as  the  result  of  the  attacks 
of  Strauss  and  Weisse.  And  even  this  remnant  has  been  called 
into  dispute  by  those  who  think  the  authenticity  must  be 
rejected ;  in  fact,  the  enthusiastic  judgment  pronounced  by  the 
earlier  centuries  on  its  substance  and  form,  has  been  completely 
reversed.  The  era  of  illumination  at  the  beginning  of  our 
century  had  already  pronounced  this  judgment,  (Vogel,  Job.  u. 
sein.  Ausl.  &c. — John  and  his  Expositors  before  the  last  judg- 
ment, part  1,  p.  26 :)  "  Our  Gospel  is  adapted  to  the  infirmities 
of  men  ivJio  have  had  no  effusion  of  the  philosophic  spirit.  It  is 
of  little  use  to  Christians  of  our  day."  Bretschneider,  in  his 
Probabilia,  c.  i.  §  8,  has  attempted  to  make  a  comparison  to 
their  disadvantage,  of  the  discourses  of  Christ  in  the  fourth 
Gospel  with  those  in  the  synoptical  ones;  on  this  point,  he 
complains  of  the  "loquacity"  with  which  Christ  speaks  of  the 
dignity  of  his  person,  of  the  "  obscurity  of  the  words  and  their 
artificial  ambiguity,"  of  the  "great  repetition  of  the  very  same 
things,"  of  that  "sublimity  so  foreign  to  human  sympathies, 
so  chilling,  and  calculated  to  repel  rather  than  attract  the 
mind,"  and  as  the  opposite  of  this,  praises  highly  the  practical 
fruitfulness  and  nervous  style  of  the  first  Gospels.  The  most 
recent  criticism  since  Strauss  has  adopted  this  esthetic  judg- 
ment ;  and  the  matter  has  reached  such  a  point,  that  in  some 
issues  of  the  Halle  Litteraturzeit,  (e.  g.  1841,  IsTo.  15,  16,)  the 
Christ  of  John  has  been  denounced  as  but  an  unworthy,  vaunt- 
ing thaumaturgist,  unfit  to  serve  as  a  moral  ideal.  It  is  con- 
tended, that  the  narratives  and  dialogues  of  Jesus  are  formed 
after  one  and  the  same  manner  in  John,  that  one  and  the  same 
tone  runs  through  every  thing,  the  misapprehension  on  the 
part  of  the  hearers,  the  presentation  of  sublime  truths  tran- 
scending the  sphere  of  the  speaker,  the  long  and  tautological 


Introductiox,  §  5.  25 

spimiiug  out  of  simple  ideas — in  all  of  wliicli  there  is  evidence 
of  the  uniiistorical  character  of  the  events  as  well  as  of  the 
discourses.  AVc  will  first  take  up  the  events,  afterward  the 
discourses. 

When  dialogues  like  the  one  with  JTicodemus  and  that  with 
the  woman  of  Samaria  are  designated  as  presenting  internal 
marks  of  improhability,  it  must  be  done  primarily  upon  a 
basis  of  exegetical  views,  the  correctness  of  which  cannot  be 
conceded,  as  when,  for  example,  it  is  insisted  upon — as  Bauer 
and  Schwegler  especially  have  done — that  according  to  John's 
account,  Nicodemus  actually  understood  the  expression  of 
Jesus  in  regard  to  the  new  birth  in  a  j^^'^sical  and  literal 
sense ;  and  so  in  other  cases  of  the  same  kind.  A  correct 
exposition  of  such  portions  will  prove  that  they  contain  in 
them  internal  marks  of  historical  authenticity.  It  is  true, 
John  was  not  present  when  these  things  occurred,  but  did 
not  Nicodemus  after  his  conversion  attach  himself  to  the 
Apostles?  And  as  to  the  conversation  with  the  Samaritan 
woman,  did  she  not  herself,  according  to  chap.  iv.  39,  inform 
her  own  people  of  what  Jesus  had  said  to  her?  Besides,  Jesus 
remained  there  two  days  with  his  Disciples,  so  that  if  he  did 
not  himself  acquaint  his  Disciples  with  what  passed  at  the 
interview,  they  nevertheless  had  abundant  opportunity  of 
reaching  a  knowledge  of  it.  That  the  idea  of  a  distinctive 
mannerism,  running  through  all  John's  dialogues,  is  groundless, 
has  been  shown  by  Schweizer,  in  the  work  quoted,  p.  30,  seq. 
Xo  proof  is  needed,  as  regards  the  events,  that  the  matter  of 
them  could  be  impressed  upon  the  memory ;  the  common  order 
of  things  leaves  us  no  room  to  doubt  it.  As  evidence  that  they 
actually  have  been  retained  with  great  fidelit}',  we  may  in  our 
Evangelist  appeal  to  the  great  degree  in  which  our  intuitive 
perception  confirms  his  narrative.  It  cannot  be  denied  that  to 
innumerable  defenses  of  Christianity,  we  may  apply  what 
Gibbon  said  of  the  Athanasian  creed:  "It  was  rhetoric  con- 
strued into  logic.''  Yet  on  the  other  side,  too,  it  is  a  mere 
rhetorical  artifice,  when  Strauss  (Leben  Jesu,  Th.  i.  p.  60,  1st 
ed.)  tries  to  meet  Ileydenreich's  declaration,  that  the  individual 
character  stamped  upon  the  biblical  histor^^,  sufficiently  demon- 
strates that  it  is  not  mythical,  by  the  statement,  that  a  couple 

4 


26  Introduction,  §  5. 

of  pages  further  on  we  encounter  in  this  same  writer  exactly 
the  opposite  argumentation,  to  wit:  that  in  the  legends  that  are 
framed,  every  thing  becomes  more  circumstantial  and  more 
ornate.  Both  these  views  are  beyond  question  perfectly  true, 
and  it  looks  as  though  Strauss  tried  to  array  these  two  truths 
against  each  other,  because  he  did  not  feel  himself  strong 
enough  to  undertake  to  meet  them  himself.  In  the  myth  which 
is  formed  unconsciously  and  involuntarily  from  common  re2:)ort, 
you  miss  as  a  general  rule  the  individualizing;  on  the  other 
hand,  just  to  the  degree  to  which  reilection  consciously  works 
upon  the  common  report,  the  individualizing  takes  place,  but 
in  a  way  that  is  designed,  and  therefore  untrue.  Has  not  the 
effort  been  made  on  the  one  side  to  establish  the  mythical 
character  of  the  feeding  of  the  six  thousand,  and  of  Jesus' 
walking  on  the  sea,  because  the  power  of  coming  home  to  our 
intuition,  which  characterizes  fact,  is  wanting  in  them  ?  And 
who,  on  the  other  side,  does  not  already  know  from  the 
Apocryphal  Gospels,  the  designedly  individualizing  character 
of  the  legend?  Is  it  not  adduced  as  proof  on  the  one  side, 
that  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  is  not  from  Paul,  because  there 
is  a  want  of  individual  references  in  it ;  and  on  the  other,  is  not 
that  very  touch  of  individuality  in  2  Peter  i,  17, 18,  because  of 
"its  obvious  desiguedness,"  adduced  as  proof  against  the 
genuineness  of  that  Epistle  ?  We  may,  it  is  true,  be  asked  to 
furnish  the  criteria  by  which  we  may  distinguish  this  designed 
individualizing  from  that  which  is  natural  and  really  historical. 
This  demand  we  may  be  in  a  position  up  to  a  certain  point  to 
satisfy,  but  suppose  that  we  could  not  do  it,  we  need  be  as 
little  embarrassed  b}^  this  as  a  painter  would  be,  who,  without 
being  able  to  give  the  specific  rules  by  which  he  judges,  yet 
with  unerring  tact,  decides  what  is  j^ortrait,  what  study,  and 
what  a  fancy  sketch.  We  can  confidently  maintain  that  the 
historian  will  at  once  recognize  in  John  not  an  air-drawn  ideal, 
but  a  2)ortrait  after  the  original. 

The  difficulties  connected  with  the  discourses  are  greater. 
It  is  undoubtedly  true,  that  the'  discourses  of  the  Saviour  in 
John  have  something  hovering  and  diffluent  in  their  character, 
and  are  consequently  less  easy  to  retain  in  the  memory,  so  that 
the  difficulty  which  exists  at  the  very  first,  of  impressing  such 


Introduction,  §  5.  27 

discourses  word  for  word  on  the  memory,  seems  to  become  an 
impossibility,  when  we  think  of  the  long  interval.  If  we 
consider  besides  the  difference  of  the  contents  from  those  of 
the  synoptical  discourses,  since  in  it  the  thoughts  are  connected 
and  expressed  in  a  diffluent  manner,  while  in  the  others  we 
meet  with  parables  and  pointed  sentences ;  if  we  notice,  more- 
over, the  similarity  between  the  thoughts  and  style  in  John's 
Epistles  and  those  of  Christ's  discourses  in  the  Gospels,  and 
especially  the  circumstance,  as  some  maintain,  that  the  Baptist 
has  been  made  to  speak  in  the  Evangelist's  own  style,  the 
authenticity  of  these  discourses  appears  to  be  in  the  very 
greatest  peril.     Let  ns  weigh  these  different  points  one  by  one. 

This  last  circumstance  has  been  pronounced  by  Strauss  him- 
self (3d  ed.  i.  p.  713,)  the  "thing  of  chief  moment  in  the  whole 
matter."  There  are  three  passages  in  which  John  apparently 
attributes  twice  to  the  Baptist  and  once  to  Jesus  words  of  his 
own,  (chap.  i.  16,  seq.  iii.  16,  seq.  iii.  31,  seq.) 

We  commence  with  the  first  passage,  ch.  i.  16,  seq.  I  think 
that  it  will  be  conceded  that  if  the  author  of  the  fourth  Gospel 
has  consciously  foisted  these  words  upon  the  Baptist,  he  cannot 
with  truth  be  regarded  as  a  man  of  talent,  which  Strauss  how- 
ever concedes  that  he  is.  The  expression  "of  his  fullness  have 
we  all  received,"  is  indicative  most  clearly  of  a  member  of  the 
Christian  Church,  while  in  the  mouth  of  the  Baptist  it  would 
be  perfectly  inexplicable.  We  must  not  neglect  to  notice,  too, 
that  the  16th  v.  is  not  linked  to  the  15th,  but  to  the  last  words 
of  the  14th,  "full  of  grace  and  truth."  The  historical  narrative 
of  the  witness  of  John  comes  in  first  at  v.  30 ;  here  his  witness, 
as  at  V.  7,  also,  is  introduced  to  confirm  the  Evangelist's  own 
declarations,  on  which  point  we  must  bear  in  mind  that  for 
him,  as  one  who  had  been  a  disciple  of  the  Baptist,  his  words 
possessed  a  double  weight.  "Of  his  fullness,"  manifestly  is 
connected  with  the  "full  of  grace  and  truth,"  to  which  words 
again  "the  grace  and  truth,"  v.  17,  refer.  Wo  have  here  also 
an  indubitable  voucher  for  the  fact,  that  the  Evangelist,  without 
distinguishing  them  in  any  marked  way,  passes  from  the  remarks 
of  another  to  his  own.  Let  us  now  look  at  ch.  iii.  16-21.  That 
Jesus  could  not  have  spoken  these  words,  will  only  be  main- 
tained with  positiveness  by  those  who  have  already  made  up 


28  Introduction,  §  5. 

their  minds  that  he  cannot  have  spoken  in  general  in  the  way 
in  which  John  represents  him  as  speaking.  "VVe  will  concede 
thus  much,  that  in  these  words,  more  than  in  other  discourses 
of  Jesus,  the  Evangelist's  mode  of  expression  makes  its  appear- 
ance. "What  well  grounded  objection,  however,  can  be  urged 
against  the  view  that  from  v.  16  he  consciously  expands  the 
thought  which  had  just  been  presented  by  the  Saviour  ?  The 
example  from  the  first  chapter  has  already  given  us  a  voucher 
that  he  does  not  strongly  mark  the  transitions  of  the  dis- 
course. The  first  Epistle  of  John  shows  throughout,  that 
it  directly  belongs  to  the  peculiar  features  of  the  Evangelist 
not  to  designate  fully  transitions  of  thought.  But  is  it  really 
necessary  in  the  case  before  us  to  appeal  to  a  characteristic  of 
the  Evangelist?  Does  not  every  preacher  among  us  connect  in 
the  same  way  his  own  inference  with  the  text  he  quotes  from 
the  Bible  ?^  If  we  desire  an  instance  yet  more  specific,  we  have 
it  in  Gal.  ii.  14 ;  after  Paul  had  mentioned  in  the  direct  course 
of  his  remarks,  what  he  had  said  to  Peter  in  Antioch,  these 
remarks  from  the  15th  v.  without  any  observable  transition, 
blend  with  what  he  has  to  say  to  the  Galatians.  Certainly 
similar  vouchers  could  be  adduced  from  various  points,  one  for 
example  which  I  meet  in  Jerome,  Comment,  on  Isaiah  liii.  (ed. 
Vallarsii,  p.  612.)  He  there  says :  "  Clement,  a  man  of  the 
Apostolic  age,  writes  to  the  Corinthians:  the  sceptre  of  God, 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  came  not  in  the  pomp  of  pride,  though 
he  had  all  power,  but  in  humility — in  so  much  that  being 
smitten  by  a  servant  of  the  high  priest,  he  answered  :  If  I  have 
spoken  evil,  give  testimony  of  the  evil,  &c."  If  we  had  not  the 
Epistle  of  Clemens  Romanus,  we  would  have  regarded  all  this 
as  his  words,  as  Martianay  has  actually  done ;  but  the  text  of 
the  Apostolic  Father  demonstrates,  that  from  the  words  "  in  so 
much"  we  have  Jerome's  own  reflection.  To  this  must  be 
added,  that  John  is  accustomed  to  attach  reflections  of  his  own 


»  To  this  example  Bauer  (Kritik  des  Joh.  p.  105,  see  what  Strauss,  2d  ed.  i.  705, 
objects  to  the  instance  from  Jerome,)  has  replied,  that  the  preacher  has  before  him 
an  acknoidedgcd,  distinctly  concluded  sentence  of  another.  Certainly,  yet  these 
sentences  are  some  more,  some  less  familiar.  AVhen  the  critic  says,  that  no  one 
should  include  any  thing  of  his  o-wn,  where  the  remark  he  quotes  is  not  likely  to  be 
recognized  nor  the  point  at  which  it  stops  known,  it  may  be  a  very  good  rule  of 
style ;  but  docs  John  oflFend  against  none  of  the  rules  of  style  ? 


Introduction,  §  5.  29 

to  the  discourees  of  Christ.     As  in  chap.  xii.  44-50,  he  recapit- 
ulates  in   a   comprehensive   form   the   key-notes   of    Christ's 
discourses,  might  he  not  in  the  same  way,  when  an  opportunity 
oflered,   attach  to  some  declaration  of  Christ  himself  a  state- 
ment in  the  third  person  of  those  same  fundamental  doctrines? 
We  come,  then,  to  the  third  passage,  iii.   31-36.     That  the 
Baptist  himself  uttered  these  words,  is  very  improbable.     The 
conclusion,  however,  that  the  Evangelist  designed  them  to  be 
regarded  as  the  words  of  the  Baptist,  is,  to  say  the  least,  equally 
inadmissible.     In  the  very  first  place,  to  establish  the  position 
thoroughly  that  the  Evangelist  has  incorporated  reflections  of 
his  own,  it  would  be  necessary  to  show  that  portions  of  dis- 
course occur  mingled  with  discourses  of  the  Baptist,  which  can, 
with  the  same  plausibility,  be  referred  to  the  Evangelist,  as  vs. 
31  and  36  apparently  can.     Now  the  direct  reverse  is  the  case ; 
that  vs.  27-30,  throughout  accords  with  the  tone  of  the  Baptist's 
mind,  cannot  be  denied ;  the  Gospel  of  John  accords  here,  at 
least,  with  the  synoptical  ones,  Matt.  iii.  11-14.     Much  stress 
has  been  laid  upon  the  fact,  that  the  parabolic  element  is  so 
foreign  to  the  author  of  the  fourth  Gospel,  yet  in  these  few 
words  of  the  Baptist  we  have,  v.  27,  a  gnome,  and  v.  29,  a 
parabolic  sentence ;  v.  30,  is  also  expressed  in  a  sententious 
Old  Testament  manner,  at  least  is  not  worded  after  the  style  of 
the  Evangelist.     If,  now,  the  Evangelist  in  the  first  chapter, 
having  connected  with  an   earlier   declaration  of  his  own  a 
sublime  expression  of  the  Baptist,  pursues  his  own  remarks 
without  anything  intermediate,  who  can  take  ofiense  that  in 
this  place  the  words  of  his  beloved  teacher  of  a  former  day: 
"He  must  increase,  but  I  must  decrease,"  are  taken  as  a  point 
of  transition  to  a  further  delineation  of  the  preeminence  of 
Christ?     In  the  first  chapter,  after  mentioning  the  Baptist,  he 
adds,  V.  8 :  "He  was  not  that  light,  but  was  sent  to  bear  witness 
of  that  light;"  in  the  same  vein  with  that  remark  he  here  says, 
V.  31 :  "He  that  is  of  the  earth,  is  earthy,"  &c.     As,  finally,  in 
the  first  chapter,  a  strange  hand  smuggling  itself  in  would  have 
betrayed  too  great  a  clumsiness  if  it  had  put  v.  16  in  the  mouth 
of  the  Baptist,  so  equally  in  this  passage  would  it  have  been 
the  case  if,  after  his  disciples,  v.  26,  had  said  to  him:  "All 
men  come  to  him,"  after  he  had  acknowledged  it  too  in  what 

4* 


30  Introduction,  §  5. 

he  says  in  reply,  the  contradictory  words  had  been  put  in  his 
mouth  which  closely  follow  in  v,  32:  "And  no  man  receiveth 
his  testimony."  Do  not  these  words,  just  as  clearly  as  chap,  i. 
16,  betray  the  emotion  of  the  Disciple,  who  in  the  midst  of 
the  feeble  Church  stands  over  against  an  unbelieving  Avorld,  in 
whom  still  resounds  that  word  of  the  Master  which  we  read  in 
iii.  11,  V.  38  ?     (See  xH.  37.) 

We  turn  now  to  the  second  instance,  and  consider  the 
diversity  in  the  contents  of  the  discourses  of  Jesus  in  the 
synoptical  Gospels  and  in  that  of  John.  "  The  Christ  of  John 
differs  from  that  of  the  synoptical  Gospels  to  such  a  degree, 
that  it  would  be  easier  to  imagine  two  faces  to  one  head,  than  that 
these  two  images  can  be  equally  faithful  likenesses  of  the  same 
individual."  In  these  words  of  "Weisse  we  have  the  doubt  pre- 
sented in  its  most  glaring  colors.  Inasmuch  as  for  the  present, 
as  we  have  said,  we  leave  the  form  out  of  question,  we  simply 
ask  whether  the  contents  of  Christ's  discourses,  according  to 
John,  cannot  be  authentic  equally  with  those  in  the  synoptical 
account?  Before  our  day,  the  difference  in  the  delineation  of 
Socrates  in  Xenophon  and  in  Plato  had  already  been  adduced 
as  a  parallel.  In  Xenophon,  Socrates  appears  as  a  man  desti- 
tute of  a  speculative  turn,  and  thoroughly  practical ;  according 
to  Plato,  as  a  profound  spirit,  who  sought  to  refer  practice 
itself  for  its  ultimate  basis  to  the  speculative  necessity.  Against 
this  parallel,  which  I  have  expanded  and  argued  more  at 
large  in  my  Credibility  of  the  Gospel  History,  (Glaubwiirdigk. 
der  Ev.  Ges.  2d  ed.  p.  319,)  Bauer,  in  his'  work  before 
quoted,  p.  412,  alleges  that  so  long  as  we  cannot  prove  that 
Plato  designed  in  his  Dialogues  to  give  historical  notices  of 
Socrates,  and  so  long  as  it  is  clear  from  other  history  that  the 
philosophical  pupil  recognized  constantly  as  his  teacher  that 
very  man,  whom,  according  to  that  principle,  (of  the  value  of 
speculation,)  he  surpassed,  the  judgment  must  be  valid,  that 
Xenophon  alone  has  given  a  true  image  of  Socrates.  "We 
think  it  sufficient  on  this  point,  to  make  our  defense  with  the 
authorities  of  which  we  have  availed  ourselves  in  the  part  of 
our  work  alluded  to  above,  (Glaubw.  p.  319.)  An  entirely 
different  view  from  that  of  Mr.  Bauer,  in  relation  to  the 
partially  historic  character  of  Socrates  in  Plato,  is   held  by 


Introduction,  §  5.  31 

Schleiermacher,  Brandos  and  Hegel.  Brandes,  in  his  disserta- 
tion in  the  "  Rhenish  Museum,  Elements  of  the  Socratic 
Doctrine,  (Grundlinien  der  Lehre  des  Socrates,  H.  i.  p.  122,)* 
says:  "It  was  by  no  means  usual  in  antiquity,  as  in  recent 
times,  to  consider  the  picture  of  Socrates  sketched  by  Xeno- 
phon  as  a  true  portrait,  the  Socrates  of  Plato,  on  the 
contrary,  as  an  ideal,  something  as  completely  destitute  of 
reality  as  Plato's  theory  of  ideas  itself."  And  yet  Plato  did 
not  at  all  design  a  purely  historic  delineation,  while  the  fourth 
Evangelist  did  so  design.  We  can  apply  to  the  subject  before 
us  the  pertinent  language  of  Bcngel,  (Ilarmonie,  p.  615 :) 
"The  same  person  may  narrate  the  same  thing  on  different 
occasions  in  a  diflerent  way,  and  yet  in  each  case  with  the 
fundamentals  of  truth.  Compare  Acts  ix.  and  xxvi.  with  each 
other,  and  of  the  same  kind  chap.  x.  and  xi.  where  the 
conversion  of  Paul  and  Cornelius  is  told  twice.  If  a  drawing 
is  made  of  a  city  first  from  the  east  side,  then  from  the  west, 
though  in  both  cases  the  tallest  and  most  striking  towers 
and  edifices  are  presented,  yet  in  all  other  respects  the  two 
sketches  not  only  can,  but  must  difi:er  widely.  And  yet  both 
are  faithful  copies  of  the  original."  "We  will  not  urge  that  the 
character  and  value  of  many  of  the  expressions  characteristic 
of  John  are  of  such  a  nature  that  it  is  utterly  out  of  the  ques- 
tion to  regard  them  as  the  voluntary  invention  of  any  Jewish 
Christian  of  that  day,  though  De  "VVette  himself  has  decided 
for  the  authentic  character  of  a  number  of  John's  expressions 
on  the  ground  "that  they  glow  with  a  lustre  more  than 
earthly."  May  we  not  suppose,  that  among  the  twelve 
Apostles  one  man  could  be  found  of  as  much  originality  as 
Paul  ?  If  we  think  of  John  as  one  of  those  mystic  spirits,  a 
homo  desideriorum,  as  Am.  Commenius  expresses  it,  of  a  class 
rare!}'  occurring,  from  his  youth  diverted  from  practical  life 
and  directed  toward  the  invisible  world,  {Ap2)ollo7iian  souls, 
these  elect  ones  of  our  race  were  styled  by  the  ancients,)  and 
think  of  the  other  Apostles  as  possessing  the  traits  still 
common  to  fishermen  and  publicans;  surely  the  image  of  Christ 
which   impressed   itself  on   John,  the   discourses  which  had 

1  See  Hegel,  in  his  History  of  Philosophy,  in  his  works,  Th.  iv,  p.  124. 


32  Introduction,  §  5. 

peculiar  value  to  him,  would  not  be  the  same  we  find  in  the 
other  Evangelists.     We  are  speaking  here  for  the  most  part 
hypothetic-ally,  but  the  evidence  which  sustains  our  hypothesis 
oflfers  itself   readily  to  the  eye.     For  all  the  doctrinal  matter 
characteristic   of   John,   (and   on   this    argument   the   greatest 
weight  should  be  laid,)  some  parallels  at  least  can  he  found  in 
the  s^nojJtical  Gospels  and  in  the  New  Testament  Epistles.     The 
most  scrupulosity  may  be  directed  against  the  authenticity  of 
the  many  discourses  of   Christ   in  regard  to  his   mysterious 
relation  to  the  Father ;  yet  we  have  an  expression  of  Christ,  in 
regard  to  his  relation  to  the  Father,  in  Matt,  which  in  its  form 
sounds  so  much  like  John,  that  frequently  persons  not  familiar 
with  the  Bible,  have  looked  for  it  in  John,  (Matt.  xi.  25. ^    A 
second  instance  of  this  sort  is  not  to  be  found  in  the  synoptical 
Gospels,  yet  be  it  marked,  that  Christ  in  his  discourses  even  in 
them  designates  himself  as  the  Logos,  who  already  has  wrought 
under  the  Old  Testament,  Matt,  xxiii.  37,  (this  cannot  refer  to 
Christ's  repeated  presence  in  Jerusalem,)  Luke  xiii.  34,  com- 
pare with  Matt,  xxiii.  34.     The  mysterious  communion  of  the 
Redeemer  with  those  who  believe  in  him,   is  spoken  of  in 
Matt,  xxviii.  20 ;  the  promise  of  the  Paraclete  appears  to  be 
peculiar  to  John,  yet  Luke,  chap.  xxiv.  49,  has  it  also.     Of 
love  in  that  universal  sense  in  which  John  employs  it,  Christ 
does  not  speak  in  the  first  Gospels,  but  Paul  does,  as  he  does 
also  of  that  mystical  "being  in  Christ,"  whose  tones  pervade 
John.      Whether    Paul    is   indebted  for  this   knowledge   to 
expressions   of   Jesus,    transmitted   orally,    or   to    the    direct 
operation  of  Christ  wnthin  him — in  either  case  he  confirms  the 
doctrinal  t}^e  of  John  as  genuinely  Christian.     On  the  other 
side,  let  us  not  in  the  difference  of  contents  forget  the  agree- 
ment.    Where  John  does  not  report  discourses  of  a  doctrinal 
character  where  tlie  discourses  are  connected  with  the  histoiy 
of  Christ,  there  is  almost  an   agreement  to  the  letter,  as  in 
the   narrative  of  Peter's  denial,  in  that  of  the  woman  who 
anointed  Christ's    feet,  (compare  chap.  xii.  7,  8,  with  Matt. 

1  In  Matt.  xvii.  26,  is  nn  expression  which  has  not  been  noticed  as  it  deserves, 
in  which  Christ  speaks  of  his  higher  relation  to  God  in  a  manner  as  original  as 
it  is  profoundly  spiritual — he  is  no  subject  in  God's  kingdom,  he  is  the  only 
begotten  Son.  ^^ Mij  Father"  is  used  in  its  emphatic  sense  in  Luke  ii.  49, 
Matt.  XV.  13,  xviii.   10,  xix.  35,  xx.  23,  xxvi.  29,  et  al.  as  it  is  in  John. 


Introduction,  §  5.  33 

xxvi.  10-12,)  and  in  that  of  Pilate.  The  narrative  of  the 
woman  who  was  taken  in  adultery,  chap.  viii.  reminds  us  of 
the  type  of  the  other  Gospels,  even  though  we  suppose  it  to 
be  a  record  from  the  Apostle's  narration,  by  another  hand. 
Notice  the  argument  with  the  Pharisees,  x.  34,  the  practical 
confutation  of  them,  v.  39,  42,  45,  vii.  19.  If  w^e  add  to  this, 
that  the  Evangelist  in  all  probability  had  the  contents  of  the 
other  Gospels  before  his  eyes,  and  designed  to  give  chiejly  what 
they  had  not,  the  difference  of  contents  can  excite  no  further 
scruple.  —  The  writings  which  were  occasioned  by  Bret- 
schneider's  Probabilia  belong  here :  liettberg's  An  Johannes 
in  exhibenda  Jesu  natura  reliquis  canonicis  scriptis  vere 
repuguct?  Gott.  1828;  Reineke's  work  on  the  same  subject, 
182G,  of  less  value ;  an  essay  in  Ileydenreich's  Zeitschrift  fiir 
Prediger-wissenschaft.  1  B.  1  H. ;  compare,  also,  Schott, 
Isagoge  in  Xov.  Test.  p.  129, 

We  come  now  to  the  foryn.  We  ask,  in  how  far  the  nari'a- 
tiou  of  the  discourses  may  be  considered  a  verbal  one  ?  That 
it  should  be  absolutely  word  for  word,  is  made  impossible  by 
the  fact  that  it  translates  from  the  Aramaic  into  Greek ;  even 
in  the  synoptical  Gospels  the  different  narrations  of  the  very 
same  discourse  run  into  contrarieties  in  form.  What  judg 
ment  are  we  to  form  of  the  similarity  of  language  in  the 
Epistles  of  John  and  the  discourses  of  Jesus  given  in  his 
Gospel?  Origen  in  his  day,  and  more  recently  the  work  of 
Stronk,  (de  doctrina  et  dictione  lohanuis  ad  lesu  magistri 
doctriuam  dietiouemque  exacte  composita.  1797,)  go  upon  the 
supposition  that  the  Disciple  had  formed  himself  thoroughly 
upon  the  style  of  the  Master.  How  much  of  the  same  sort 
has  occurred  even  in  our  own  time,  I  have  in  my  Glabwiirdig- 
keit  der  Evang.  Gesch.  p.  337,  attempted  to  show  by  instances 
from  the  most  recent  literature.  John  stood  in  the  very 
sort  of  relation  to  Christ  wdiich  makes  a  dependence  of  this 
character  credible ;  between  the  Disciple  and  the  Master  on 
whose  bosom  he  lies,  must  exist  a  close  personal  relation. 
Grotius  makes  the  happy  remark  that  John  was  more  (fdcrjaoo:;, 
Peter  more  (pcXoyj/iaziji;^  (John  loved  Jesus,  Peter  loved  Christ,) 
as  Plutarch,  Vita  Alex.  c.  47,  says  of  Ilepha^stion  andCraterus, 
Alexander's  two   friends,  that  the   former   loved  Alexander, 


34  Introduction,  §  5. 

the  lattei-  the  king.  If  such  a  relation  could  effect  as  regards 
the  suhstance,  that  he  took  up  what  was  profoundest  and  most 
essential,  so  could  it  cause  as  to  the  form  that  he  might  take  up 
what  was  adventitious,  especially  if  we  may  suppose  a  certain 
softness  and  feminine  character  in  him.  Yet  we  cannot  maintain 
this  dependence  as  regards  the  casual  elements  of  speech  ;  the 
hovering  nature  and  diffluence  of  these  in  John  point  rather 
to  the  character  of  the  Disciple  than  of  the  Master.  Still  we 
are  justified  in  supposing  that  the  phraseology  and  certain 
leading  terms  are  to  be  referred  to  the  Master's  account,  and 
even  Strauss  has  conceded  more  than  we  could  have  ventured 
to  hope,  when  (Thl.  i.  p.  676,  1st  ed.)  he  grants  that  the 
antitheses  of  "flesh"  and  "spirit,"  "light"  and  "darkness," 
"above"  and  "beneath,"  that  moreover  the  mystic  expressions 
"bread  of  life,"  "living  water," — of  which  not  one  occurs  in  the 
synoptical  Crospels — are  constituents  of  the  original  discourses 
of  Christ,  which  the  author  "  has  only  developed  further  in  an 
Alexandrian  or  in  a  general  Hellenistic  spirit."  But  how 
could  the  Disciple  remember  these  discourses  after  the  lapse  of 
from  forty  to  sixty  years  ?  and  if  he  was  in  Jerusalem  all  this 
time  in  the  thrall  of  a  gross  Judaism,  how  can  that  fact  be 
harmonized  with  his  holding  such  discourses  as  these  of  Christ 
in  his  memory  ?  K  we  concede  that  the  diffluent  form  is  the 
Evangelist's  own  peculiarity,  that  only  the  thoughts  lying  at 
the  bottom  of  it  belong  to  Christ,  all  that  is  essential  as  to  the 
difficulty  of  his  remembering  vanishes.  The  more  ardent  his 
nature,  the  more  profoundly  must  every  thing  impress  him. 
We  are  reminded  in  this  connection,  how  many  examples 
tbere  are  in  our  own  time  of  persons  who  attribute  their 
awakening  to  some  particular  sermon  or  sermons,  and  who  are 
able  to  repeat  what  impressed  them,  with  tolerable  fullness, 
eveu  after  they  reach  old  age.  Irenseus,  in  a  passage  preserved 
in  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccles.  v.  20,  and  which  will  be  given  in  full 
in  the  next  §,  declares,  that  in  his  old  age  he  could  remember 
very  fully  the  discourses  of  Poly  carp,  which  he  had  heard 
when  a  young  man,  and  uses  two  expressions  which  we  can 
employ  here:  "What  we  learn  in  our  youth,  growing  with  our 
minds,  unites  with  them  firml}-,"  and :  "  Constantly  by  the  grace 
of  God  I  carefully  ruminated  on  the  things  he  said."     It  is  not 


INTRODUCTION,    §  5.  JJ5 

probable,  indeed,  that  John  at  an  early  period  took  notes  for 
himself,  but  the  impossibility  of  his  doing  so  cannot  be 
established.  "Who  would  imagine  that  the  tanners  and  shoe- 
makers, with  whom  Socrates  conversed,  would  make  notes? 
and  yet  this  very  fact  is  recorded  of  Simon  the  shoemaker. 
Of  the  pupils  of  the  Rabbins  (o'TDSn)  it  is  now  and  then 
mentioned,  that  they  wrote  down  sentences  from  the  lips  of 
their  masters.  Finally,  we  must  remember  the  promise  of  our 
Lord,  that  the  Spirit  should  recall  to  the  memory  of  the 
Disciples  what  they  had  heard,  John  xiv.  26.  If  the  Spirit  of 
the  Lord  touched  the  soul  of  the  Disciples  in  general,  like  an 
electric  stroke,  all  the  intellectual  faculties,  and  of  course  the 
memory  of  the  truths  they  had  heard,  must  have  shared  the 
animating  influence.  He  who  believes  that  in  accordance 
with  God's  purposes,  Christ  has  appeared  in  history  as  a 
Redeemer,  believes  at  the  same  time,  by  necessary  implication, 
in  a  transmission  of  his  discourses  and  acts  faithful  in  all 
essential  respects.  Evidence,  too,  derived  from  the  character 
of  the  discourses  before  us,  present  themselves  that  they  are  no 
invention  from  the  Disciple's  hand,  and  that  De  Wette  goes 
too  far  when  he  speaks  of  "an  intoxication  of  soul,"  in  which  he 
has  mingled  things  of  his  own  with  the  expressions  of  Christ. 
Christ  in  his  discourses  does  not  designate  himself  by  the  name 
of  the  Logos,  and  with  all  the  greatness  wdiich  he  aflirms  of 
himself,  there  are  expressions  even  in  John  which  seem  to  lower 
him,  (chap.  xiv.  12,  28,  x.  34.)  If  it  can  be  shown  that  the  dis- 
courses of  the  Baptist  are  narrated  in  all  respects  faithfully  and 
in  unison  with  the  synoptical  Gospels,  would  not  this  be 
a  ground  for  a  fixvorable  inference,  a  posteriori,  as  to  the  dis- 
courses of  Jesus  ?  Noiv  with  the  exception  of  a  single  passage^ 
(the  contested  "  he  that  cometh  after  me  is  preferred  before 
me,"  i.  15,)  there  is  nothing  in  the  discourses  of  the  Baptist  which 
is  not  either  given  in  the  first  Evangelists,  or  susceptible  of  explana- 
tion from  his  Old  Testament  prophetical  character.  Compare 
chap.  i.  19-36,  iii.  27-30.  We  have  been  supposing  a  complete 
discrepancy  of  form,  yet  this,  like  the  discrepancy  of  matter, 
allows  of  limitation.  As  regards  the  gnomologic  and  parabolic 
form,  compare  chap.  v.  35,  iii.  8,  iv.  34-38,  ix.  39,  x.  1,  seq.  xv.  1, 


S6  Introduction,  §  5. 

seq.  xvi.  21  and  25.  A  number  of  sentences  are  coincident  in 
the  reciprocal  accounts  of  the  Evangelist:  John  xiii.  16,  xv.  20, 
of.  Matt.  X.  24 ;  John  xii.  24,  xxv.  26,  cf.  Matt.  x.  38,  39 ;  John  iv. 
44,  cf.  Matt.  XV.  57 ;  John  xiii.  20,  cf.  Matt.  x.  40 ;  John  xiv.  31, 
cf.  Matt.  xxvi.  46.  Again,  the  first  Gospels  have  expressions 
which  even  in  respect  of  form  remind  us  of  John :  Matt.  xi. 
25-30,  viii.  22,  vi.  22,  xix.  17,  xxvi.  29,  Luke  vii.  35,  45,  cf. 
Matt.  X.  39,  with  John  xii.  25,  the  use  of  a):f]&cv6z  and  aXXorpcoc 
Luke  xvi.  11,  12,  olol  too  (fcoroi;  Luke  xvi.  8,  with  John  xii.  36.' 
It  yet  remains  for  us  to  clear  up  the  last  scruple,  which  is 
how  the  discourses  of  our  Lord,  which  exhibit  a  position  of 
such  freedom,  could  have  lain  dormant  and  inactive  in  him 
during  the  time  he  continued  in  a  rigid  Judaism  ?  (Llitzelberger, 
liber  d.  Ap.  Joh.  p.  179.)  The  scruple  sounds  like  a  very 
important  one,  but  it  presupposes  more  than  can  be  proved. 
For  in  what  consisted  the  difterence  between  James,  John  and 
Peter,  on  the  one  side,  and  Paul  on  the  other  ?  Both  parties 
were  united  in  the  view  that  Gentiles  were  to  be  admitted  to 
the  Church ;  the  only  point  on  which  a  scruple  was  entertained, 
was  whether  they  were  to  be  exempt  from  the  observance  of 
the  Mosaic  law.  Paul  himself  never  designed  to  abrogate  it 
at  once  among  the  Jewish  Christians.  The  question  then  arose, 
whether,  for  the  sake  of  unity  among  Christians,  the  Gentiles 
also  should  not  be  obligated  to  keep  it.  An  agreement  was 
effected  at  Jerusalem,  which,  from  a  spirit  of  accommodation 
toward  the  Jews,  (Acts  xv.  21,)  imposed  upon  the  Gentiles  the 
avoidance  merely  of  the  grossest  causes  of  offense.  Now  in  all 
the  discourses  of  Christ  given  by  John,  is  there  anything 
inconsistent  with  this  ?  Can  the  scruple  of  the  Disciples  occa- 
sion surprise,  when  Jesus  himself  during  his  life  subjected 
himself  to  the  demands  of  the  law?     The  case  would  have 

1  JoHn  xi.  11,  Tvbere  a  pause  observed  in  the  discourse  of  Jesus  is  marked, 
may  serve  as  a  proof  of  accuracy  as  to  form  in  recollecting  the  discourse  of 
Jesus;  so  may  viii.  23,  "and  he  said  unto  them."  Yet  on  the  other  side,  we 
may  observe  a  carelessness  to  a  remarkable  extent,  as  regards  verbal  agreement, 
in  xii.  34,  xi.  40,  x.  28,  vi.  36.  The  verbal  fidelity  of  the  narrative  is  made 
most  evident  -where  the  Evangelist  interprets  the  words  of  Christ,  chap.  ii.  20, 
vii.  38,  xviii.  9,  xii.  32,  on  the  last  of  which  passages,  De  Wette  himself  says : 
"It  must  be  accepted  as  a  fact,  that  Jesus  used  this  expression."  But  yet 
the  expression  xii.  33,  vii.  37,  has  the  coloring  peculiar  to  John  ! 


Introduction,  §  6.  37 

been  very  different  had  John  made  the  justification  of  man 
dependent  on  the  observance  of  the  hiw.  Kor  liave  the  other 
Apostles  done  this  in  a  single  instance.  On  this  point  compare 
Schweizer,  in  his  work  before  quoted,  p.  238. 

§  6.     On  the  Genuineness  and  Authenticity  of  John. 

In  the  early  Church  no  opposition  to  this  Gospel  found  vent, 
except  that  of  the  sect  of  Alogians,  who  also  urged  indeed 
difficulties  from  the  historical  difference  between  John's  Gospel 
and  the  synoptical  ones,  but  especially  as  they  rejected  the 
doctrine  of  the  Logos,  were  led  to  object  to  it  on  doctrinal 
grounds.  After  them — not  to  mention  some  anonymous  Eng- 
lish deists — the  first  doubts  of  its  genuineness  were  raised  at 
the  close  of  the  last  and  beginning  of  the  present  century ;  its 
genuineness  was  contested  by  Eckermann,  (1793,)Vogel,  (1801,) 
Horst,  (1803,)  Ballenstedt,  (1812.)  The  great  difference  in 
Christ's  method  of  teaching,  and  the  assumed  coincidence  with 
Philo's  theology,  were  then  the  grand  stumbling  block  of  doubt. 

These  assaults  were,  however,  destitute  of  foundation  in 
various  respects,  especially  of  a  historical  sort.  Bretschneider 
sought  to  furnish  this  in  his  Probabilia  de  Evang.  et  Epist. 
lohannis  apostoli  indole  et  Origine,  1820 ;  and  that,  too,  on 
grounds  and  presumptions  of  many  of  which  the  most  recent 
period  has  again  availed  itself.  According  to  Bretschneider's 
theory,  the  author  of  this  Gospel  belongs  to  the  first  half  of  the 
second  century,  and  is  a  writer  with  a  doctrinal  drift,  who 
composed  this  work  with  the  design  of  propagating  the  meta- 
physical doctrine  of  the  deity  of  Christ.  At  that  time,  especially 
because  of  the  partiality  of  the  school  of  Schleiermacher  for  the 
Gospel  of  John,  these  arguments  obtain  no  currency.  The 
author  retracted  his  doubts.  The  most  important  writings 
against  his  work,  are  those  of  Calmberg,  de  Antiquiss  patrum 
pro  Evangelii  loh.  authentia  testimoniis,  1822,  Ilemscn,  1823, 
and  Crome,  182-1.  The  attachment  to  this  Gospel  only  in- 
creased the  more,  while  on  the  other  hand  the  synoptical 
ones,  by  obvious  prejudice,  were  lowered.  Suddenly,  Strauss 
appeared,  and  preeminently  with  arguments  drawn  from  inter- 
nal criticism,  impugned  the  authenticity  and  historical  basis  of 


38  Introduction,  §  6. 

the  fourth  Gospel  more  decidedly  than  those  of  the  first  three. 
While  the  first  three  were  a  confused,  but  natural  echo  of  the 
ori<i^inal  liistory  of  Jesus,  John's  was  but  an  artificial  resonance, 
produced  in  part  with  skill  and  taste.  It  might  have  been 
supposed  that  with  this  verdict,  the  age  of  brass  for  this  Gospel 
had  come ;  but  it  was  only  the  age  of  iron.  It  was  but  the 
beginning  of  the  end,  for  at  once  various  persons  began  to  make 
various  uses  of  the  separate  materials  out  of  which  Strauss  had 
built  his  theory,  and,  in  part,  applied  them  to  the  erection  of 
ncAV  edifices ;  or  should  we  rather  say,  of  castles  in  the  air.  First 
appeared  Weisse,  (die  Evang.  Geschichte  kritisch  bearbeitet, 
1838,  2  Th.)  with  the  following  so  called  essay  toward  medi- 
ation :  John  himself  (though  with  too  strong  an  imagination,) 
had  written  "Studies  for  a  biography  of  Jesus,"  one  or  more 
laborers  had  reduced  these  studies  to  the  dialogue  form,  and 
had  added  historical  data,  yet  all  this  "has  been  spun  out  so 
awkwardly,"  that  predicates  like  the  following  are  heaped  upon 
the  delineation :  "  insipid,  whimsical,  incongruous,  obscure, 
ambiguous,  bordering  on  nonsense."  The  new  hypothesis 
found  a  solitary  adherent  in  Schenkel,  (Stud,  und  Kritik.  1840, 
H.  iii.)  and  has  been  attacked  by  Frommann,  (Stud,  und  Kritik. 
1840,  H.  iv.)  and  Liicke,  3d  ed.  Gfrorer,  who,  in  his  History 
of  Early  Christianity,  has  wholly  surrendered  the  genuineness 
and  authenticity  of  the  first  Gospels,  refers  to  the  fourth  as 
"the  Sanctuary  and  the  truth."  Here  now  we  learn  the 
following :  The  Gospel  belongs  to  the  Apostle  John,  but  partly 
owing  to  the  feebleness  of  an  old  man's  memory,  partly  to  his 
fancy,  the  history  and  discourses  have  in  great  measure  been 
falsely  detailed;  for  example,  Lazarus  is  only  the  young  man  of 
Nain,  the  history  of  the  man  that  was  born  blind  is  merely  an 
embellishment  of  the  same  thing  that  Mark  viii.  22,  narrates, 
&c.  De  Wette,  as  is  his  wont,  on  this  question  hesitates 
between  Yes  and  No,  with  a  predominance  of  the  Yes,  however, 
though  with  a  decided  limitation  of  the  authenticity.  Liitzel- 
berger  (Die  Kirchliche  Tradition,  &c. — The  Tradition  of  the 
Ohurch  in  regard  to  the  Apostle  John  and  his  writings  proven 
io  be  groundless,  1840,)  thinks  that  he  has  shown  that  the 
A-postle  never  was  in  Asia  Minor,  and  that  he  died  before 
,'aul.     IT^s  examination  of  the  historic  proofs  of  the  genuine- 


Introduction,  §  G.  39 

ncss  of  the  Gospel  embraces  much  that  is  worthy  of  attention, 
but  his  positive  idea  is  the  most  baseless  that  could  well  be 
imagined :  that  the  unknown  author  (this  is  inferred  from  ch. 
iv.)  was  probably  a  Samaritan,  who  relied  upon  the  Apostle 
Andrew  for  his  information,  and  wrote  the  Gospel  beyond  the 
Euphrates.  To  Bruno  Bauer  (Kritik  der  Evang.  Geschichte 
des  Job.  1840,)  we  owe  the  discover}^,  that  the  Gospel  is 
throughout  the  pious  reflection  of  the  later  Church,  twined 
about  some  historic  fragments  so  slender  as  hardly  to  be  per- 
ceptible, and  the  whole  thing  done  so  awkwardly  and  sense- 
lessly, that  the  falsifier,  for  instance,  thinking  himself  of  Christ 
as  ascended  to  heaven,  commits  the  blunder,  chap.  iii.  13,  of 
making  Christ  ivTiile  yet  living  speak  of  himself  as  one  who  had 
already  ascended  to  heaven.  If  the  iron  age,  as  regards  the 
contents  of  the  Gospel,  may  be  regarded  as  having  been  reached 
in  Bruno  Bauer — for  in  a  literary  point  of  view  the  charge  of 
want  of  sense  degrades  a  writer  more  than  that  of  deception  — 
the  age  of  brass  as  regards  the  estimate  of  the  external  grounds 
of  genuineness  seems  to  have  come  with  Schwegler,  (comp.  the 
Dissertation  on  John's  writings  in  his  book:  der  Montanismus, 
&c. — Montanism  and  the  Christian  Church  of  the  second  cen- 
tury, 1841.)  According  to  him,  the  Gospel  was  written  about 
the  year  170,  in  Asia  Minor,  in  the  circle  of  the  adherents  of 
the  elder  Apollinaris,  and  imputed  to  John  to  secure  the  favor 
of  the  Jewish-Christian  readers ;  it  embraces  allusions  to  the 
prevalent  disputes  in  regard  to  Easter,  and  designs  to  compose 
the  difterence  between  the  Ebionite  and  Gnostic  parties. 
Sohweizer  has  made  a  new  essay  with  a  theoiy  which  makes  a 
division  in  the  Gospel,  (das  Ev.  Job.  nach  seinem  iunern  Werthe 
und  seiner  Bedeutung,  &c. — the  Gospel  of  John  according  to  its 
internal  value  and  its  importance  for  the  life  of  Christ  critically 
examined,  1841.)  The  supplemental  chap,  xxi.,  some  particular 
verses,  and  the  history  of  the  healing  at  Capernaum,  of  the 
miracle  at  Cana  and  of  the  miraculous  feeding,  he  supposes  to 
be  interpolations. 

"We  will  adduce  first  the  external  testimonies  of  tradition  tvhich 
establish  the  genuineness  of  the  Gospel.  We  may  here  remark, 
that  there  has  been  up  to  this  time  an  agreement  in  the  senti- 
ment, that  the  Gospel  and  first  Epistle  must  have  proceeded 


40  Introduction,  §  G. 

from  the  same  author,  that  the  testimonies  for  the  use  in  the 
Church  of  the  Epistle  are  an  argument  for  the  Gospel  also, 
though  it  does  not  necessarily  follow  from  this  that  John  was 
its  author. 

Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccles.  iii.  39,  says  of  Papias,  who  must  have 
been  cotemporary  with  Aristion,  and  the  presbyter  John,  who 
were  Disciples  of  our  Lord,  that  he  cited  testimony  from  the 
first  Epistle  of  John;  Polycarp  also,  ad  Philipp.  c.  7,  cites  1 
John  iv.  3.  The  fourth  Gospel  must  then  at  the  time  im- 
mediately subsequent  to  the  death  of  the  Apostle,  have  been 
regarded  as  a  Christian  document.  We  would  certainly  sup- 
pose that  Polycarp,  a  pupil  of  the  Apostles,  or  at  least  since  his 
Epistle  is  a  brief  one,  that  Ignatius,  another  of  their  pupils,  who 
has  left  seven  Epistles,  would  have  some  citations  from  the 
Gospel  or  allusions  to  passages  in  it.  Yet  the  Letter  to  the 
Romans  affords  but  one  certain  allusion,  chap,  vii.:  "I  desire 
the  bread  of  God,  which  is  the  flesh  of  Jesus  Christ — and  I 
desire  drink,  which  is  his  blood,"  comp.  John  vi.  33,  54,  55. 
But  it  should  be  observed  that  in  Letters,  in  hortatory  writings, 
less  occasion  offered  for  quoting  the  Gospel :  in  the  letters  of 
Ignatius  we  have  only  some  five  citations  from  the  Gospels, 
whilst  there  are  twenty-five  or  thirty  from  the  Xew  Testament 
Epistles ;  in  the  Letter  of  Clemens  Pomanus,  only  two  from 
the  Gospels,  and  some  twenty-three  from  the  Epistles  of  Paul 
alone  ;  in  the  nine  chapters  of  the  Letter  of  Polycaip,  some  five 
from  the  Gospels,  and  about  twenty  from  the  Epistles ;  in  the 
Letter  to  Diognetus,  a  solitary  expression  fi-om  Matthew,  and 
about  nine  from  the  Epistles.  The  next  witness  is  Justin 
Martyr,  in  the  middle  of  the  second  century,  who  saj's  :  "  Christ 
said,  except  ye  be  born  again  {avajewrj&r^ze)  ye  cannot  enter 
into  the  Idngdom  of  heaven,  but  that  those  who  have  once 
been  born  cannot  enter  a  second  time  into  their  mother's  womb, 
is  evident  to  all."  Comp.  iii.  3-5.  The  grounds  on  which  it 
has  been  denied  that  there  is  a  quotation  in  these  words,  are  not 
sufficient ;  Creduer  and  Schwegler  maintain  that  the  passage  is 
borrowed  from  the  xqpuyixa  Bex  poo,  because  the  "  veril}',  verily  " 
characteristic  of  John  is  wanting,  because  he  has  oMa'fzvTjd^i^vat 
and  not  dvco&zv  yewrj&r^vac,  because  he  has  "kingdom  of  heaven" 
and  not  "kingdom  of  God,"  and  because  this  same  passage 


IXTRODUCTION,    §  G.  41 

occurs  in  ITomil.  Clem.  xv.  §  26,  but  in  these  Homilies  not 
John  but  the  xr^pnyim  Ilizpoo  was  employed,  (Schwegler,  ;Mon- 
tanismus,  p.  184 ;)  but  these  Homilies  (Hom.  iii.  §  52,)  cite  the 
expression  which  is  undoubtedly  John's:  " My  sheep  hear  my 
voice,"  cf.  John  x.  27,  and  the  Rceognitioncs,  1.  vi.  §  9,  quote 
these  words:  "Verily  I  say  unto  you,  except  a  man  be  born 
again  of  water  he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven." 
Since  in  this  place,  too,  where  the  citation  from  John  is  yet 
more  unmistakable,  the  expression  used  is  "  kiugdom  of 
heaven,"  and  not  "kingdom  of  God,"  it  proves  that  in  quoting 
from  memory  the  more  current  expression  derived  from  the 
first  three  Gospels  had  been  substituted  for  the  "kingdom  of 
God,"  peculiar  to  John. 

With  the  mention  made  by  Justin  Martyr,  we  connect,  that 
in  the  letter  to  Diognetus,  which  assuming  the  latest  date  must 
be  referred  to  this  time,  if  not  to  the  Apostolic,  (compare 
Semisch,  Justin  der  Mjityrer,  p.  185 — Justin  Martyr,  his  life, 
writings  and  opinions,  Tr.  by  J.  E.  Ryland,  Edinburgh,  T.  &  T. 
Clark,  2  vols.  Bib.  Cab.)  In  this,  c.  10,  occurs  the  expres- 
sion :  to  whom  (men)  he  sent  his  only  begotten  Son,"  and 
immediately  after :  "  or  how  shouldst  thou  love  him  who  before 
so  loved  thee ;"  they  stand  in  precisely  the  same  connection  in 
1  John  iv.  9,  10,  compare,  too,  v.  19 :  "  We  love  him  because 
he  first  loved  us."  From  the  middle  of  the  first  [second.  Tr.] 
century  we  have  also  the  testimony  of  the  Valentiuians 
(Valentinus  died  160,)  for  the  use  of  the  Gospel.  Iren?eus 
expressly  testifies  (adv.  h?er.  iii.  11,  7,)  that  the  Yalentinians 
used  the  Gospel  of  John  in  order  that  they  might  be  able  to 
appeal  to  a  Disciple  of  Jesus.  There  is  not,  indeed,  explicit 
evidence  that  Valentinus  himself  used  it,  but  his  j)upil,  Herak- 
leon,  wrote  a  commentary  on  it,  and  Ptolemy  and  Thcodotus 
have  also  employed  it.  As  this  sect  had  their  own  Gospel, 
Evangelium  Veritatis,  they  could  have  added  the  Gospel  of 
John,  only  because  it  was  anciently  acknowledged  in  the 
Church,  and  in  order  to  employ  it  in  recommending  their  own 
views. 

After  the  middle  of  the  second  century,  the  indubitable 
witnesses  increase.  First  of  all  are  to  be  mentioned  the 
Montanists,    (Montanus    flourished    about   160 ;)   they   rested 

6* 


42  Introduction,  §  G. 

their  appeal  on  the  fulfillment  in  their  sect  of  Christ's  promise 
of  the  Paraclete.  Schwegler  has  indeed  pretended  to  main- 
tain that  this  sect  did  not  derive  the  name  "Paraclete"  from 
the  Gospel,  (in  his  work  already  cited,  p.  188,)  but  in  this 
position  no  one  will  concur  with  him.  Valentinus  himself,  who 
enumerates  as  jieons  the  products  which  originated  from  the 
union  of  dvd^pwrzoz  and  ixxXr^aia,  to  wit:  riarjdxXrjTO:;,  IJcazi^, 
^FAttc^,  'Aya-Yj,  &c.  has  undoubtedly  derived  these  terms  from 
Christianity,  and  not,  as  that  critic  insists,  from  Philo.  The 
Letter,  also,  of  the  Church  of  Lyons  and  Vienna,  in  the  year 
177,  applies  the  term  Paraclete  to  the  Holy  Ghost,  Euseb. 
Hist.  Eccles.  v.  1 ;  we  find  in  it  also  a  citation  from  John  xvi. 
2.  Yet  earlier  must  we  place  Tatian,  the  scholar  of  Justin, 
who  in  his  Apology,  c.  13,  undoubtedly  quotes  the  Gospel : 
This  is  what  was  said :  rdbro  iarcv  dpo.  to  elpyjuivoD-  -q  axoxla  to 
(pax:  oux  xaTa?Mfjtl^du£i,  "  The  darkness  comprehended  not  the 
light,"  and  c.  19 :  Tzdvra  utt  auTou  xal  ycoplc.  omou  ykyovzv  oudk 
iu.  "All  things  were  by  him,  and  without  him  was  not  any 
thing  made."  That  the  Diatessaron  of  Tatian  opened  with 
the  first  words  of  our  Gospel:  "In  the  beginning  was  the 
word,"  has  been  disputed  by  Credner,  but,  as  Daniel  has 
shown  in  his  work,  Tatianus  der  Apologet,  p.  89,  without 
good  grounds.  The  Apology  of  Athenagoras,  written  about 
177,  embraces  also  (c.  10,)  some  words  from  John  i.  3,  and 
allusions  to  John  xvii.  21,  22,  23.  Keferences  to  the  Gospel, 
which  can  scarcely  be  denied,  are  to  be  found  after  the 
middle  of  the  second  century,  in  Celsus ;  see  Origen,  cont.  Cels. 
V.  52,  i.  66,  67.  In  the  last  of  these  passages  he  speaks  of  the 
demand  which  the  Jcavs  made  of  Christ  in  the  temple,  which 
Jesus  declined  to  satisfy  by  an  explicit  sign.  It  is  impossible 
here  to  mistake  the  reference  to  John  ii.  18.  There  is  nothing 
singular  in  the  circumstance  that  none  of  the  writers  hitherto 
mentioned  quote  John  by  name,  and  that  ordinarily  there  is 
not  a  literal  agreement  in  the  words,  for  it  is  well  known  that 
the  citations  by  name,  of  the  biblical  writers,  begin  with  the 
second  half  of  the  second  centur}^,  and  the  citation  by  book 
and  chapter  still  later.  The  first  citation  of  the  Gospel  of 
John  by  name,  appears  in  the  Apology  of  Theophilus  of 
Antioch,  written  about  180,  (B.  ii.  c.  22 ;)  Irenieus  belongs  to 


Introduction,  §  G.  43 

the  same  periocl,  (died  202,)  in  whom  we  have  repeated  citations 
by  name,  of  the  Gospel,  the  Revehition,  and  tlie  first  Epistle 
His  evidence  derives  greater  weight  from  the  fact  that  he  was 
a  native  of  Asia  Minor,  that  he  had  knoAvn  and  heard  Polycarp, 
thongh  only  as  a -arc  ^^  ~f/  TTocorr^  y^?.cxca  "a  mere  boy,"  and  that 
the  Gospel,  from  its  suiting  the  purposes  of  the  Valentinians,  as 
well  as  on  the  account  of  the  opposition  in  which  it  appeared 
to  stand  to  the  Chiliasm  entertained  by  Irentcus,  must  have 
been  less  consonant  with  his  inclinations  as  an  individual.  In 
a  remarkable  document  he  refers  Florinus,  his  friend  and 
former  fellow  pupil  with  Polycarp,  to  the  fact  that  the  com- 
munications of  the  venerable  Bishop  of  Smyrna,  in  regard  to 
John's  doctrines,  coincide  with  the  writings  of  John,  (Eusebius, 
Histor.  Ecclesiast.  v.  20 :)  "  I  saw  thee  in  my  youth  in  Lower 
Asia  with  Polycarp — -for  I  remember  the  events  of  those  times 
much  better  than  those  of  recent  occurrence — what  we  learn  in 
fact  in  our  youth,  grows  with  our  soul,  and  grows  together 
with  it  so  closely,  that  I  can  even  yet  tell  the  place  where  the 
holy  Polycaip  sat  when  he  discoursed,  his  entrance  and  exit, 
the  peculiarities  of  his  mode  of  life,  his  bodily  figure,  tho 
discourses  which  he  addressed  to  the  people,  how  he  told 
of  his  familiar  intercourse  with  John  and  with  the  rest  who 
had  seen  the  Lord,  how  he  narrated  their  discourses,  and  what 
he  had  heard  of  them  in  regard  to  the  Lord,  about  his  miracle^^ 
and  doctrine,  all  of  which,  as  Polycarp  had  received  it  from 
those  who  were  eye-witnesses  of  the  word  of  life,  he  narrated  in 
harmony  with  the  Holy  Scriptures — these  things,  by  the  mercy 
of  God  then  granted  to  me,  I  attentively  heard,  and  noted 
down,  not  on  paper,  but  in  my  heart,  and  by  the  grace  of  God 
I  continually  repeat  it  faithfully." 

This  very  document,  nevertheless,  has  been  adduced  by 
Liitzelberger  as  an  evidence  that  Ireneeus  not  only  received  no 
testimony  from  Polycarp  in  regard  to  the  Gospel,  but  that 
Polycarp  himself  knew  only  of  oral  communications  from  the 
Apostle ;  that  in  general  the  witness  does  not  deserve  much 
regard,  since  Ireuffius  was  at  that  time  a  boy,  (Credner  even 
says,  "a  child.")  Dodwell,  we  admit,  goes  too  far  when  he 
attempts  to  show  that  the  term  -al^  in  Irenaius  embraces  the 
age  of  twenty-five  years ;  but  that  it  cannot  well  indicate  any 


44  Introduction,  §  6. 

thing  short  of  the  sixteenth  year,  may  be  inferred  from  the 
improbability  that  a  boy  younger  than  this  would  have  given 
the  strict  heed  to  the  instructions  of  the  Bishop,  which  this 
father  of  the  Church  represents  himself  to  have  done.  Liitzel- 
bereer  maintains,  that  Irenceus  would  have  been  under  the  most 
urgent  necessity  of  establishing  the  genuineness  of  the  Gospel, 
for  to  conclude  from  the  title  which  Ireneeus  has  attached  to 
that  polemical  Epistle,  Florin  us  must  have  been  attached  to 
the  principles  of  Marcion,  and  must  have  held  with  them  that 
the  Gospels  had  been  corrupted  by  Jewish  Christians ;  in  place 
of  this,  we  find  only  an  appeal  to  an  oral  communication  of 
Polycarp,  and  that  too  but  a  repetition  of  what  John  had  orally 
taught.  To  this  may  be  opposed  the  following :  That  Florinus 
was  at  that  time  a  Marcionite  is  incorrectly  inferred  by  Liitzel- 
berger  from  the  superscription  of  the  letter  mentioned;  (see 
IS'eauder's  Kirchengesch.  i.  3,  p.  11,  47 — History  of  Religion 
and  the  Church,  Tr.  by  Joseph  Torrey,  Boston,  i.  677,  680;) 
that  he  possibly  had  doubts  of  the  genuineness  of  the  Gospel 
is  conceded,  although  he  might  then,  as  he  did  at  a  later 
period,  when  a  Valentinian,  have  derived  support  for  his  errors 
from  an  artificial  exposition  of  the  Gospel.  The  assertion, 
however,  that  Irenseus  was  unable  to  give  any  historical  proof 
of  the  genuineness  of  the  Gospel,  can  be  supported  by  the 
fragment  we  have  quoted  only  on  the  supposition  that  this 
father  could  have  had  no  other  object  than  to  convince  Florinus 
of  his  heresy  by  means  of  John's  toritings.  But  in  our  opinion 
this  was  not  his  object.  Irenseus  rested  much  more  upon  the 
hope  that  the  testimony  of  the  writings  in  question,  which 
could  not  be  eluded  without  some  movement  of  a  better  con- 
sciousness, would  appeal  irresistibly  to  the  consciousness  of 
the  heretic,  when  he  reminded  him  of  what  he  had  heard 
with  his  own  ears  from  the  gray  disciple  of  the  Apostles, 
and  had  at  that  time  listened  to  with  confidence. — To  trace  the 
tradition  further  than  Clemens  Alexandrinus  and  Origen,  after 
the  testimonies  adduced,  would  be  superfluous.  We  may 
mention,  however,  that  the  learned  Origen,  who  commented 
on  the  Gospel  about  222,  and  who  has  mentioned  every  attack 
on  the  New  Testament  writings,  even  that  on  the  2d  and  3d 
Epistles  of  John,  without  the  shadow  of  a  scruple  uses   the 


Introduction,  §  6.  45 

Gospel  as  genuine,  and  that  Eusebius,  the  man  who  seems  to 
have  been  acquainted  with  the  entire  Christian  literature  in 
existence  in  his  time,  speaks  of  it  at  the  beginning  of  the 
fourth  century  as  "  a  Gospel  fiimiliar  to  all  Churches  under 
the  heavens." 

Let  us  yet  glance  at  the  testimony  presented  in  c.  xxi.  24,  25. 
Until  the  time  of  Tittmann,  these  words  were  regarded  by  a 
large  majority  as  the  words  of  the  Evangelist.  Theodore  of 
Mopseustia  was  the  lii*st  who  regarded  them  as  a  testimony 
from  another  hand  ;  subsequently  some  Catholic  writers  whom 
Maldonatus  reproves ;  and  besides  these,  Grotius,  Basnage,  and 
all  the  recent  theologians.  They  cannot  be  ascribed  to  John. 
If  they  came  from  the  same  author  as  chap,  xxi,  then  this 
whole  chapter  must  be  referred  to  another  hand,  and  this  is  a 
perilous  avowal,  inasmuch  as  it  would  involve  a  concession 
that  at  that  time  others,  besides  John,  knew  so  well  how  to 
write  in  John's  style.  But  the  contrast  even  between  the  sim- 
plicity of  John  in  what  precedes,  and  the  hyperbole  in  v.  25, 
shows  that  this  testimony  alone  proceeds  from  another  hand. 
The  expression  "we  know,"  also  points  to  the  fact,  that  the 
writer  oftered  his  testimony  as  the  representative  of  a  number 
of  persons.  A\niat  then  does  he  testify  ?  What  is  the  force  of 
the  TO'jzcou  and  za'jza  ?  Do  they  refer  merely  to  the  narrative 
immediately  preceding  ?  This  is  not  at  all  improbable.  Since 
that  narrative  is  a  mere  appendix,  this  witness  may  have 
felt  himself  called  on  to  attest  with  his  own  hand  that  the 
Apostle  was  the  author  of  it,  and  may  have  been  led  in  this 
way  to  the  remark,  that  many  other  things  might  have  been 
added.  We  should,  however,  bear  in  mind  the  fact,  that  the 
writer  of  this  verse  apparently  had  in  his  eye  the  closing  verses, 
30,  31,  of  chap.  xx.  so  that  it  is  probable  that  in  the  rouzcou  and 
zauza  he  designs  a  reference  to  the  entire  Gospel,  and  purposed 
by  the  addition  of  these  closing  words  to  designate,  as  it  were, 
the  appendix  as  a  part  of  the  entire  Gospel.  In  this  view,  then, 
what  does  he  attest  ?  The  authenticity  and  credibility  of  the 
Gospel.  Weisse,  Ev.  Gesch.  p.  100,  and  Liitzelberger,  p.  187, 
seq.  object,  that  a  Gospel  which  needed  the  appending  of  a  tes- 
timony of  this  sort  could  not  have  been  acknowledged  to  any 
great  extent.      "Are   these   words    which   indorse   it,"  asks 


4$  IXTKODUCTION,    §  6. 

Weisse,  "  of  such  weight  as  to  counterbalance  the  suspicious 
circumstance,  made  obvious  by  their  very  existence,  that  pre- 
vious to  the  publishing  of  the  Gospel  it  must  have  passed 
through  other  hands? — through  hands,  too,  which  imagined 
that  they  could,  by  written  additions  made  at  their  own  pleas- 
ure, impart  a  higher  credibility  than  it  possessed  in  itself?" 
Do  these  words,  then,  presuppose  a  doubt  of  the  authenticity  ? 
Is  it  not  more  probably  the  case,  as  Schweizer,  p.  59,  has 
already  observed,  that  this  attestation,  like  that  of  chap.  xix.  35, 
I'ather  had  a  practical  aim — to  give  an  urgent  call  upon  the  reader 
to  lay  the  book  to  heart  ?  Besides,  how  strange  is  this  testimony 
of  a  person  appearing  in  the  name  of  a  number  of  others,  yet 
totally  omitting  the  mention  of  any  name  !  I  regarded  myself  as 
justified  in  drawing  from  this  the  conclusion,  that  this  testimony 
could  not  at  least  have  originated  with  a  forger,  (Glaubwiirdig- 
keit  der  Ev.  Geschichte,  p.  273,  2d  ed.)  "Had  any  unauthorized 
transcriber  or  forger  of  a  later  period  desired  to  stamp  upon  the 
authenticity  of  the  Gospel  an  apocryphal  seal,  would  he  have 
added  this  seal  without  associating  the  name  with  it,  and 
thereby  have  deprived  it  of  all  its  force  ?"  Can  this  inference 
be  disputed  on  valid  grounds  ?  Cannot  this,  at  least,  be  inferred 
with  certainty :  that  an  honest  and  conscientious  cotemporary  of 
the  ApQstle  has  attested  the  genuineness  of  the  Gospel  ?  "When 
Liitzelberger,  p.  195,  meets  this  with  the  remark :  "  That  only 
forgers  of  the  clumsiest  kind  invent  every  thing  with  great 
preciseness,  and  by  this  very  circumstance  are  detected  at  once," 
we  would  put  but  one  question  to  him,  whether  he  ever  heard 
of  a  forger  so  "clumsy"  as  to  suppose  that  he  was  doing  great 
service  to  a  friend  by  a  brilliant  testimou}' — to  which  no  name 
whatever  was  subscribed  ?  Did  not  this  testimony  proceed  from 
an  honest  man,  and  from  a  sensible  one  too  ?  But  of  what  use 
would  such  a  testimony  be ? — "it  is,"  suys  Liitzelberger,  p.  195, 
"under  the  circumstances  in  which  John  must  have  stood, 
unnecessary,  amounting  to  nothing,  in  fact,  absurd  and  sense- 
loss."  But  how  was  it,  if  the  first  readers  were  generally 
acquainted  with  the  man  from  whose  hands  they  received  the 
Gospel,  if  they  were  in  fact  familiar  with  his  handwriting  ? 
There  is  nothing  at  the  beginning  or  close  of  the  first  Epistle 
of  John  to  designate  the  writer  more  clearly.     Grotius  already 


Introduction,  §  6.  47 

raises  the  query,  whether  tliis  witness  may  not  have  been  the 
presbyter  of  the  Church  of  Ephesus,  in  fact  the  presbyter 
John?  We  might  perhaps  suppose  a  circle  of  disciples,  like 
Aristion,  the  presbyter  John,  and  Andrew,  who  were  in  Ephesus 
in  the  second  century,  as  Credner  does,  Einleit.  p.  237.  K  per- 
haps this  Gospel  was  first  of  all  in  use  in  the  Church  of  Ephe- 
sus, and  at  a  later  period  was  circulated  from  this  among  the 
neighboring  Churches,  we  have  a  still  better  solution  of  this 
subscription.  There  is,  too,  an  ancient  tradition  that  this  was 
the  case  to  which  Usteri  gives  his  assent  in  his  Commentatio  in 
qua  Ev.  lohannis  genuinum  esse,  &c.  Zurich,  1823,  p.  125,  as 
also  recently  Baumgarten-Crusius  in  his  Commentary  on  John, 
p.  XXV.  where  he  declares  con^dently  that  the  zvriting  of  the  Gospel 
was  not  immediately  folloived  hy  its  publication.  Thus  much  then 
is  established,  we  have  from  cotemporaries  and  acquaintances  of 
John  a  testimony  for  the  genuineness  of  his  Gfospel. 

Certainly  we  might  make  3'et  further  demands  on  the  external 
testimony.  Let  it  be  added,  however,  to  this,  that  (with  the 
exception  of  the  Alogiens,  whose  objections  were  derived  fi'om 
doctrinal  interests,)  from  the  beginning  no  opposition  and  no 
difference  of  views  was  expressed,  and  nothing  but  the  extremest 
dogmatic  prepossession  can  doubt  the  genuineness  of  this  Gos- 
pel. We  shall  yet  allude  to  but  one  point  where  doubt  can 
readily  find  something  on  which  to  fix,  and  that  is  the  testimony 
of  Irenseus.  On  that  same  historical  testimony,  to  wit :  on  thai 
of  the  elders^  of  Asia  Minor,  on  which  rests  his  belief  that 
John  composed  the  Gospel,  rests  also  his  belief  that  the  Apostle 
was  the  author  of  the  Apocalypse.  Since  the  latter,  however,  in 
the  judgment  of  Credner,  Liicke,  Xeander,  is  not  genuine,  since 
Credner,  the  zealous  defender  of  John's  authorship  of  the  Gospel, 
presumes,  in  reference  to  the  Apocalypse,  to  speak  of  the  wit- 
nesses "of  whom  Ireneeus  boasts,"  what  value  can  we  attach 
to  those  statements  of  the  elders  in  regard  to  the  Gospel  ?  To 
this  add  the  questions  with  which  Lutzelberger  presses  the 
Apologists,  how  a  man  can  deserve  credit,  who,  from  the  Iradi- 


1  It  is  usual  to  speak  of  the  "presbyters"  of  Asia  Minor,  to  -whom  Ircn;cus  was 
indebted  for  his  intelligence,  but  the  word  is  more  correctly  translated  by  "elders;" 
of.  the  expression  u-o/ivrj/iovev/iaTa  I'nzoaTo'/.iKov  rivoq  TvpeafivTtpov,  (the  commentarica 
of  a  certain  apostolic  elder,)  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccles.  v.  8. 


48  Introduction,  §  0. 

tion  of  Churches  of  Asia  Minor,  communicates  nothing  but 
marvels  and  accounts  manifestly  false  such  as,  1)  that  the 
Apocalypse  was  revealed  at  the  close  of  the  reign  of  Domitiau  ; 

2)  the  strange  prediction  he  has  put  in  the  mouth  of  Jesus  in 
regard  to  the  monstrous  grape  clusters  in  the  kingdom  of  God; 

3)  the  tradition,  that  Jesus  was  fifty  years  old,  (comp.  Liitzel- 
berger,  p.  150,  151.)  It  is  true  that  the  things  stated  call  for  a 
cautious  testing  of  the  historical  tradition  of  Irenseus.  To 
commence  with  the  last  point,  Credner  (Einl.  i.  1,  p.  215,)  has 
relieved  the  Church  father  of  the  reproach  cast  upon  him.  The 
prediction  of  our  Lord  which  was  transmitted  by  the  elders, 
and  referred  to  John  as  authority,  (Iren.  c.  hfer.  v.  33:)  "Days 
shall  come,  in  which  vines  shall  grow,  of  which  each  shall 
have  ten  thousand  shoots,  &c."  which  according  to  the  declar- 
ation of  Irenseus,  has  been  embraced  by  Papias  also  in  his  book, 
can  certainly  not  be  adapted  to  the  discourses  of  our  Saviour  in 
John's  Gospel — compare,  however,  the  xatvov  in  Matt.  xxvi.  29. 
May  not  some  expression  similar  to  this  very  word  of  Christ  in 
Matthew  lie  at  the  bottom  of  the  tradition,  some  expression 
grossly  colored  and  exaggerated  by  those  who  held  Millennarian 
sentiments  ?  If  these  ingredients  of  oral  tradition  tend  to 
destroy  its  value,  we  ask :  does  not,  on  the  other  side,  this  very 
circumstance  exalt  the  value  of  that  which  has  been  delivered  in 
writing^  awd  which  is  free  from  every  element  of  that  sort  ?  As 
regards  John's  authorship  of  the  Apocalypse,  confidence  rests 
upon  something  more  than  the  mere  testimony  of  the  elders ; 
if  it  be  not  genuine,  internal  and  external  reasons  force  us  to 
the  conclusion,  that,  at  the  least,  John  the  Presbyter  must  be 
regarded  as  its  author.  But  to  refer  the  Gospel  to  this  man 
hitherto  unknown,  would  enter  the  mind  of  no  one.  The  author 
of  a  work  like  our  Gospel,  says  Liicke,  must  have  had  a  "shape 
far  more  like  life  "  than  pertained  to  this  enigmatical  presbyter. 
That  the  Apocalyptic  vision  was  assigned  by  the  elders  of  Asia 
Minor  to  Domitian's  time,  when  the  internal  marks  of  the  book 
seem  to  establish  the  claim  of  the  time  of  Galba,  would  certainly 
detract  from  the  historical  authority  of  those  witnesses;  never- 
theless, so  little  that  is  satisfactory  has  been  contributed  as  yet 
to  the  interpretation  of  the  Apocalypse,  that  we  are  not  justified 
in  drawing  any  confident  conclusion  in  this  case.     We  have 


Introductiox,  §  7.  49 

entered  into  these  arguments  concerning  tlie  historical  authority 
of  the  testimony  to  which  Irenajus  appeals,  only  from  an  un- 
willingness to  pass  by  the  strong  side  of  the  negative  criticism 
without  reference.  The  genuineness  of  the  Gospel  would  not 
be  in  any  more  peril  if  we  totally  overlooked  the  testimony  of 
Irenseus. 


§  7.    The  most  important  Commentators  on  the  Gospel. 

As  an  Introduction  to  the  Gospel:  Dr.  WegscJieider,  voll- 
stiindige  Einleitung  in  das  Evangelium  Johannis.  Gott.  1806. 
BertJioIdt,  Verosimilia  de  origiue  Ev.  loh.  in  Opusc,  ed.  Winer, 
1824,  (Introduction  to  the  'New  Testament,  b}''  S.  Davidson, 
LL.  D.     London,  Bagster,  1847.     3  vols.  8vo.  i.  225-372.    Tr.) 

[I.     The  Patristic  Expositor s.'\ 

Origen,  (died  253,)  Comm.  in  Ev.  loh.  In  Jerome's  time 
thirtj'-nine  tomes  or  divisions  of  Origen's  Exposition  were 
extant;  Eusebius  says  that  only  twenty-two  had  reached  his 
time.  Of  this  great  work  we  have  but  portions,  though  not 
inconsiderable  ones,  (0pp.  Orig.  ed.  de  la  Rue,  T.  iv.  Opera 
Exegetica  Orig.  ed.  Huet.  T.  i.)  Important  as  this  commentary 
is  for  Origen's  doctrinal  views,  and  beautiful  as  are  passages  of 
its  matter  having  a  general  bearing  on  Christianity,  those  which, 
in  the  stricter  sense  subserve  the  exegesis  of  the  Gospel  are  but 
meagre.  [Rather  speculative  emanationes  script,  than  expo- 
sition.] 

Theodorus  of  Mopsuestia,  (d.  428,)  ApoUinaris,  (400,)  A^n- 
monius,  (250,)  (7?/n7Z  of  Alexandria,  (400.)  Important  fragments 
of  all  these  are  to  be  found  in  the  Catena  Patrum  in  Ev.  loh. 
ed.  Corderius,  Antwerpioe,  1630.  They  are  to  some  extent 
exegetical  aids  of  value,  especially  the  observations  of  Am- 
monius.  [A.  Cramer,  Catenae  in  Luc.  et  loh.  Oxon,  1841. 
An  abridgment  of  Chrysos.  Scholia  lies  at  the  basis,  with  selec- 
tions from  Apollinar.  Cyr.  Orig.  and  especially  Ammonius.] 

(Catena  Aurea :  Commentary  on  the  Four  Gospels,  collected 
out  of  the  works  of  the  Fathers,  by  S.  Thomas  Aquinas,  vol. 
4,  St.  John.     Oxford,  1845.    Tr.) 

Chrysostom,  (d.  407,)  Homill.  87,  in  Ev.  loh.     Ed.  Morelli,  T. 

6 


50  Introduction,  §  7. 

ii.  cd.  Montf.  T.  viii.)  (The  Homilies  of  St.  John  Chrysostom 
on  the  Gospel  of  St.  John.  Library  of  the  Fathers,  Oxford. 
Tr.)  These  homilies  are  specially  distinguished  by  great  rich- 
ness in  practical  observations.  Chrysostom  in  addition  explains 
the  text  in  accordance  with  a  sound  grammatico-historical 
mode  of  apprehension.  Even  here,  however,  the  purely  exe- 
getical  value  is  diminished,  by  an  undue  propensity  on  the  part 
of  Chrysostom  to  give  the  text  a  polemic  direction  against 
heretical  views. 

TheopTiylact,  (d.  1107,)  Comm.  in  Ev.  (ed.  Venet.  4  voll.  vol. 
ii.)  He  has  collected  the  choicest  portions  of  Chrysostom  and 
other  Fathers,  usually  combining  them  after  his  own  judgment, 
and  for  the  most  part  following  the  grammatico-historical 
method  of  exposition. 

Euthymius  Zigahenus,  (about  1118,)  Comment,  in  4  Evv.  ed. 
Matthias,  Lips.  1792,  4  voll.  in  vol.  iv.  This  commentary  also 
is  collected  from  the  more  ancient  Fathers ;  a  good  deal  is  from 
Chrysostom.  The  collection  has  been  prepared  with  discrimi- 
nation, and  very  much  of  it  is  useful. 

Augustine,  (d.  430,)  Tractatus  124,  in  loh.  (ed.  Antw.  T.  iii.) 
(St.  Aug.  on  St.  John.  Library  of  the  Fathers,  Oxford.  Tr.) 
These  are  homilies  in  which  Augustine  explains  the  text  very 
diffusely,  with  many  digressions.  They  present  only  here  and 
there  a  gleam  of  light  in  the  exposition  of  the  Gospel  itself  on 
the  principles  of  grammatico-historical  interpretation,  but  as  a 
compensation  for  this  they  offer  a  treasure  of  profound  Christian 
thoughts,  which  has  not  yet  been  sufficiently  drawn  upon. 

[H.     Expositors  of  the  Catholic  Church."} 

[Erasmus,  in  the  Critic,  sacr.  and  paraphr,] 

Maldonatus,  (d.  1583,)  Comm.  in  4  Evv.  Par.  1688,  2  vols. 
[New  edit,  by  Martin,  2d  ed.  1852.]  One  of  the  best  exposi- 
tors of  the  Romish  Church.  His  erudition,  especiall}^  in  pa- 
tristics,  is  great,  as  is  his  exegetical  talent,  which  reluctantly 
endures  the  shackles  of  the  Church,  yet  wears  them  neverthe- 
less. 

[_Este,  3Ienochius,  Tirinus,  Cordoni,  in  the  Bibl.  sacr.  Yen, 
1756,  Corn,  a  Lapide,  Comm.  in  4  Evv.  1670.  Ad.  Maier,  Comm. 
zum  Ev.  Joh.  1843,  2  Th.  refers  to  and  uses  the  recent  aids.] 


Introduction,  §  7.  61 

[in.      The  Reformcrs.l 

Luther  has  commented  on  this  Gospel  from  chap,  i.-xx.  in 
part  however,  in  a  fragmentary  way  only.  ("Walch's  ed.  vols, 
vii.  and  viii.)  Where  Luther  in  this  commentary  lays  aside  the 
polemic,  he  does  not  comment  on  the  Gospel — he  lives  in  it 
and  conducts  it  to  the  soul  of  the  reader  like  a  divine  well- 
spring  of  life,  for  every  one  who  thirsts  for  life.  In  the 
exposition  he  usually  strikes  the  true  point,  although  his 
exegetical  view  may  not  always  be  properly  established  and 
carried  through. 

3Ielancthoti,  Enarratio  in  Ev.  loh.  (0pp.  ed.  Viteb.  T.  iv.)  a 
collection  of  Lectures  published  by  Caspar  Cruciger.  In  a 
dedication  to  Duke  Maurice,  Cruciger  claims  this  as  his  own 
work.  (He  used  the  MS.  notes  which  Melancthon  had  given 
him.  See  Mel.  Opera,  ed.  Bretschneider,  vol.  xv.  1,  Transl.) 
The  expositions  are  natural.  In  general  the  dogmatic  interest 
predominates  to  the  detriment  of  the  exegetical.  The  briefer 
Annotationes  by  Melancthon,  [Opera  ed,  Bretschneider,  xiv.] 
.vhich  Luther  issued  in  1523,  is   a  distinct  work. 

[_Bucerus,  Enarratio  in  Ev.  loh.  1528.  3Iusculus,  Comm. 
m  loh.  1545.  Brentius,  Comm.  in  loh.  1553.  0pp.  T.  vi. 
the  dogmatic  preponderating.  Aretius,  (in  Bern,)  Comm.  in 
loh.  1578 ;  acute.] 

Calvin^  Comm.  in  Ev.  loh.  (0pp.  ed.  Amstel.  T.  vi.) 
(A  Harmonic,  &c.  of  M.  John  Calvine,  Transl.  by  E.  Piaget, 
whereunto  is  also  added  a  Commentarie  on  St.  John  by  the 
same  author,  London,  1584,  4to.  Comm.  on  John  in  Calv. 
Transl.  Society's  Publications.  Tr.)  Calvin's  Commentaries 
on  the  four  Gospels  are  less  elaborate  than  those  on  the  Epistles, 
nevertheless,  this  great  Reformer  in  this  work  also  distinguishes 
nimself  as  an  interpreter,  by  easy,  natural,  and  at  the  same 
time  profound  expositions.  As  regards  exegetical  talent,  we 
must  concede  his  preeminence  over  his  colleagues. 

Beza,  Comm.  in  K  T.  Gen.  1556.— Tig.  1653.  (5th  ed.  1665.) 
On  the  Gospels,  yet  more  largely  than  in  his  commentary  on 
the  Epistles,  Beza  developes  the  philological  knowledge  and 
exegetical  tact  which  he  possessed.     He  nevertheless  does  not 


52  Introduction,  §  7. 

elucidate  all  the  difficulties,  nor  enter  thoroughly  enough  into 
the  spiritual  meaning. 

Zwinglc,  Annotatt.  in  plerosque  N.  T.  libros.  Tig.  1581. 
Many  characteristic  conceptions. 

A  sort  of  Catena  of  the  Reformers  is  presented  in  the  valu- 
able collection  of  Marloratus,  Expositio  Catholica  N.  T.  Viviaci, 
1605,  in  which  the  best  portions  of  Calvin,  Melancthon, 
Bucer,  Musculus,  Brentius  and  others,  are  combined. 

[IV.     Seventeenth  Century-I 

G-rotius,  (d.  1645,)  Comm.  in  lY.  Evv.  Par.  1644.  Haloe, 
1769,  ed.  Windheim,  2  vols.  His  Commentary  on  the  Gospels  is 
marked  by  an  exegesis  which  is  unforced,  and  by  a  richness  in 
antiquarian  and  philological  observations,  as  also  in  parallels 
from  profane  authors,  which,  it  must  be  granted,  are  not 
always  in  their  right  place  here.^ 

[Joh.  Piscator,  Comm.  in  libros  IsT.  T.  1613.  Paul  Tarnov, 
Ev.  loh.  1629,  in  syllogistic  scholastic  form,  polemico-dogmatic. 
Chemnitz,  (d.  1586,)  Harmonia  Evang.  (continued  by  Pol. 
ZyseVj  J.  G-erhard,)  1704,  3  voll.  carefully  after  the  aids  of  the 
period.  Aeg.  Hunnius,  (d.  1603,)  Thesaurus  Ev.  ed.  ult.  1705, 
brief  dogmatic  explanation.  Coccehis,  (d.  1669,)  0pp.  T.  iv. 
Enters  into  dogmatics,  but  deficient  in  clearness  and  acuteness.] 

[V.     Eighteenth  Century.'^ 

'  Lampe,  (d.  1729,)  Comm.  exegetico-analyticus  in  Ev.  loh. 
Amst.  1735,  3  vols.  4to.  This  Lamp,  it  is  true,  has  been  set  in 
a  huge  frame,  hewn  shapelessly  out  of  abstract  logic  and 
unaccommodating  theology,  but  has  nevertheless  been  em- 
ployed by  subsequent  commentators  to  a  large  extent  as  a 
light  to  their  feet.  Under  the  syllogistic  coat  of  mail  there 
throbs  a  heart  of  sensibility,  and  the  erudition  is  so  respectable 
as  to  make  it  doubtful  whether  any  one  of  those  who  followed 
him,  has  devoted  to  the  Gospel  an  equal  amount  of  original 
labor. 

Bengcl,  (d.  1752,)  Gnomon  N.  T.  1773,  (edited  anew  by  Dr. 

1  Crell,  0pp.  Exeg.  T.  iii.  165G,  (to  chap.  13,)  is  to  be  added,  -vTbo  has  much 
peculiar  to  himself. 


Introduction,  §  7.  C3 

Steudel.  1835.)  [New  edit.  Stuttg.  and  Berlin,  1855.]  (B. 
Gnomon,  translated  by  Fausset.  T.  &  T.  Clark,  Edinburgh, 
1858.  Tr.)  The  pointings  of  his  fingers  are  sunbeams,  and 
his  hints  gleams  of  lightning.  When  he  treads  the  beaten 
path,  what  others  employ  wearisome  pages  in  saying,  he  com- 
presses into  two  or  three  words,  often,  too,  through  crag  and 
forest  he  opens  up  new  prospects. 

[VI.     Nineteenth  Century.'\ 

Charles  Christ.  Tittman,  (d.  1820,)  Mcletemata  sacra  sive 
Comm.  exegetico-critico-histor.  in  Ev.  loh.  Lips.  1816.  (Trans- 
lated by  J.  Young.  Clark's  Biblical  Cab.  2  vols.  Edinburgh, 
1844.  Tr.)  Upon  the  whole,  an  exegesis  quite  easy  and  natural ; 
but  it  fails  in  the  depth  required  to  develope  the  ideas,  and  in 
precision. 

Paulus,  Comm.  zum.  Evangel.  Job.  in  the  4th  vol.  of  2d 
ed.  of  his  Comm.  zu  den  Evangelien.  The  Gospel  of  John  is 
only  commented  on  to  the  xi.  chapter,  to  the  history  of  the 
Passion.  This  commentary  is  not  quite  so  full  as  that  on  the 
synoptical  Gospels.  The  present  time  is  perhaps  more  con- 
scious of  the  defects  of  this  commentary,  than  of  that  which 
may  be  regarded  as  its  merit.  If  the  commentator  were  as 
thoroughly  at  home  in  the  things  of  heaven  as  he  is  in  the 
matters  of  earth,  his  book  would  be  admirable.  The  author 
would  doubtless  have  handled  the  legal  technicalities  of  Pales- 
tine with  more  success  than  he  would  the  history  of  Ilis  life 
in  whose  mouth  was  found  no  guile,  and  who  was  bruised  for 
our  iniquities. 

Kuinol,  Comm.  in  Ev.  loh.  3d  cd.  1826.  This  commentary 
may  j-et  have  its  use  as  a  repertory  of  the  views  expressed  in 
the  exegetical  period  from  1750  to  1820,  when  the  exposition 
of  the  words  was  as  destitute  of  exactness  as  that  of  the  things 
was  of  depth. 

Liicke,  Comm.  zum  Evang.  Job.  3d  ed.  vol.  1,  1840,  vol.  ii. 
1843.  In  the  first  edition  of  this  work,  a  youthful  enthusiasm 
welled  up,  which  yet,  like  that  of  Herder,  was  not  clearly  con- 
scious of  its  object;  this  was,  however,  the  first  exegetical 
work  in  which  the  believing  spirit  of  the  more  recent  theology 
expressed  itself  in  a  living  form.  The  second  and  third 
B  c* 


54  Introduction,  §  7. 

editions  have  undergone  important  changes,  and  are  distin- 
guished alike  by  clearness  and  finish  of  expression,  and  thor- 
oughness of  investigation.  [This  commentary,  which  among 
recent  ones  is  justly  distinguished  as  the  most  excellent,  has 
nevertheless,  even  in  comparison  with  De  Wette,  several  defects ; 
it  is  defective  in  not  referring  to  more  of  the  previous  writers, 
especially  the  Reformers,  in  not  using  several  of  the  rarer  aids ; 
it  wants  independence  of  likes  and  dislikes.  Expositions 
which  have  been  generally  received  in  the  Churches  of  almost 
all  confessions,  are  not  regarded  as  worthy  of  an  examination 
even,  as  for  example,  the  Explanation  of  John  iii.  5.  There  is, 
moreover,  a  want  of  independent  philological  research,  and  of  a 
thorough  penetration  into  the  thoughts.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  merits  of  this  commentarj'',  are  a  varied  and  thorough 
examination  of  the  aids  used,  clearness  and  easiness  of  expo- 
sition, careful  handling  of  the  critico-historical  questions.] 

Olshaiise7i,  Biblischer  Commentar  zu  sammtlichen  Schriften 
des  IS'euen  Testaments,  Th.  v.  ed,  3d.  1838.  (Commentary  on 
the  Gospels,  translated  by  H.  B.  Creak.  Edinburgh,  T.  &  T. 
Clark.  Revised  after  the  fourth  German  edition,  by  A.  C. 
Kendrick,  D.  D.  'New  York,  Sheldon,  Blakeman  &  Co. 
1858.  Tr.)  The  distinctive  excellence  of  the  exposition  arises 
from  the  effort  to  evolve  the  substance  of  the  thought  in  the  par- 
ticular biblical  writers,  and  that,  too,  with  reference  to  its  uni- 
son with  the  Bible  system  of  faith  in  general.  It  seems  to  us, 
however,  that  the  exposition  of  the  first  three  Gospels  has  been 
more  carefully  labored,  and  possesses  higher  claims  to  original- 
ity, than  that  of  John. 

FiTcenscher,  biblisch-praktische  Auslegung  des  Ev.  Johan.  3 
vols.  1831-1833.  This  work  is  a  biblical  exposition  for  edu- 
cated laymen,  but  embraces  many  valuable  hints  for  the  learned 
interpreter. 

H.  A.  W.  Meyer,  kritisch-exeget.  Commentar  iiber  das  I^. 
5.  Th.  ii.  1834.'  The  commentary  of  the  author  increases 
in  value  in  the  subsequent  volumes ;  the  exposition  of  John 
must  be  regarded  as  scanty.  [Independent  and  linguistic-logi- 
cal acuteness,  but  wanting  in  unity  of  doctrinal  position,  and  in 
the  internal  element  of  interpretation.] 

1  Second  edition,  1852. 


Introduction,  §  7.  55 

De  Wctte,  Kurze  Erkliiruug  dcs  Ev.  Job.  2d  cd.  1839.  The 
most  important  materials  of  exposition  are  compressed  together 
in  a  judicious  manner,  and  with  independent  judgment, 
though  the  mass  of  diversified  notices,  crowded  together  in  so 
narrow  a  space,  makes  the  impression  indistinct ;  the  brevity, 
too,  of  his  own  exposition,  is  such  as  to  make  it  impossible  to 
gain  from  it  anything  like  a  satisfactory  insight  into  the  more 
important  passages.  The  criticism  of  Strauss  has  also  had  its 
influence  on  his  exposition  of  this  Gospel,  though  far  less  than 
on  that  of  the  first  three  Evangelists.  [4th  ed.  much  enlarged ; 
edited  by  Briickuer,  1852.  With  all  the  vaccillation  of  its 
doctrinal  position,  concise  and  full  of  spirit,  and  essentially 
enriched  b}'  the  additions  of  the  editor.] 

\B.  Crusius,  1843,  2  Th.  Fuller  use  of  his  predecessors  than 
Liicke  has  made ;  views  peculiar  in  many  respects.] 

Frommayin's  Johanneischer  Lehrbegriffj  (System  of  John,) 
1831,  and  Neanders  Geschichte  der  Pflanzung,  &c.  3d  ed. 
1841,  p.  757,  seq.  (Planting  and  training  of  the  Christian 
Church.  Tr.  by  J.  E.  Eyland,  Bohn,  1851,  vol.  i.  384,)  may 
be  used  with  great  advantage  as  a  preparation  for  the  reading 
of  the  Gospel. 

{Luthardt,  Das  Johann.  Ev.  nach  seiner  Eigenthlim-lichkeit, 
2  abth.  1852.  An  Introduction,  in  which  various  parts  may 
be  used  to  advantage,  an  independent  revision  of  recent  expo- 
sitions, not  without  arbitrariness  in  its  own  assumptions.] 

[Practical  Expositions.  0.  v.  G-erlach,  N.  T.  2r  Th.  Stier, 
Reden  Jesu,  4r  Th.  {Stier:  Words  of  the  Lord  Jesus.  Trans- 
lated by  Pope.  T.  &  T.  Clark,  Edinburgh,  1855.)  Fr.  Besser, 
Bibelstunden  iiber  das  Ev.  Job.  1852.] 

(Sumner,  3d  ed.  London,  1838.  Hutcheson,  Edinburgh, 
1840.     Jacobus,  New  York,  1856.     Tr.) 


CHAPTER  I. 


THE     LOGOS. 

I.    Doctrine  of  the  Logos  in  its  Historical  Aspect. 

While  the  other  Evangelists  commence  with  the  history  of 
the  God-man  when  he  appears  in  the  nature  of  man,  John 
passes  beyond  his  earthly  manifestation,  and  shows  that  before 
his  incarnation  he  had  revealed  Deity  to  men  internally,  that 
from  eternity,  indeed,  he  had  constituted  the  principle  of  the 
revelation  of  God  to  himself.  What  value  he  attached  to  faith 
in  the  eternal  existence  of  that  Redeemer  who  appeared  in 
time,  is  apparent  from  the  fact  that  he  commences  his  first 
Epistle,  also,  with  the  words,  "that  which  was  from  the  begin- 
ning." 

By  John  only  is  Christ  designated  as  the  incarnate  Logos. 
We  feel  that  he  employs  the  expression  in  this  place,  as  a  term 
not  unknown  to  his  readers,  for  he  uses  it  not  only  here,  but  in  1 
John  i.  1,  and  Rev.  xix.  13.  In  the  more  recent  time,  con- 
sequently, (with  the  exception  of  L.  Lange  in  Stud.  u.  Krit. 
1830,  H.  3,)  the  merely  grammatical  exposition  of  the  word, 
according  to  which  the  interpretation  was  either  with  Valla, 
Beza,  Ernesti,  Tittmann,  6  X6yo<:  =  iTTayyeXla  and  this  =  6 
i7rayYs?.&£c(:  (the  promised  one)  or  as  abstr.  for  concr.  for  6  Xeyiov, 
the  Revealer  of  God,  or  as  some  shallow  expositors  expressed  it, 
"Me  Teacher,''  has  been  abandoned.  Elsewhere  in  the  New 
Testament,  and  out  of  it,  we  find  doctrines  which  we  may 
believe  John  had  in  his  eye  in  this  place ;  in  fact,  we  find  the 
word  Xoyo::  used  in  a  similar  sense.  The  doctrines  which  exhibit 
this  affinity  must  be  considered,  partly  that  we  may  understand 
the  meaning  of  the  Evangelist  better,  partly  that  we  may  judge 

(57) 


58  Chap.  I.  —  The  Logos. 

how  far  he  has  had  regard  to  them,  or  even  been  dependent 
upon  them. 

That  the  distinction  between  God  as  concealed  and  as  re- 
vealed, has  a  certain  necessary  basis  in  the  nature  of  thought, 
might  be  already  deduced  from  the  fact  that  the  East,  under 
various  modifications,  acknowledges  it,  and  that  it  has  pene- 
trated even  into  the  blank  Monotheism  of  the  Mohammedans, 
(see  Tholuck's  Abh.  iiber  die  spekul.  Trinitatslehre,  &c. — Treatise 
on  the  speculative  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  in  the  East,  1826.) 
We  commence  with  the  analogies  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Logos 
which  present  themselves  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  afterward 
in  the  Apocryphal  Boohs.  Although  the  Old  Testament  faith 
in  God,  as  contrasted  with  the  heathen  polytheism,  is  a  strict 
Monotheism,  yet  it  cannot,  like  the  religion  of  Mohammed,  be 
termed  an  abstract  Monotheism.  Only  by  supposing  a  complete 
want  of  thorough  acquaintance  with  the  Old  Testament,  can 
we  account  for  it,  that  those  who  are  of  the  Hegelian  philosophy 
in  religion  have  maintained,  for  a  long  time,  that  the  God  of 
the  Old  Testament  is  one  not  immanent  to  the  world,  but 
merely  transcendent;  even  the  one  passage,  Ps.  civ.  29,  30, 
expresses  the  opposite  view  most  strongly.  But  undoubtedly 
the  Old  Testament  points  to  a  distinction  between  God  in  his 
immanence  and  in  his  transcendence.  Just  that  far  is  there 
a  certain  truth  in  the  theory.  Does  he  appear  and  work  in 
the  world,  especially  for  his  people,  then  is  the  "Angel  of 
Jehovah"  ^'i  ijnSo  his  representative,  of  whom  it  is  said,  Exod. 
xxiii.  21,  "My  name  is  in  him."  The  opinion  embraced  by 
the  older  theologians  cannot,  indeed,  be  sustained,  that  this 
"Angel  of  Jehovah  "  is  always  to  be  regarded  as  a  peculiar 
person,  distinctly  separate  from  other  angels,  (see  the  ample 
discussion  of  that  view  by  J.  A.  Michffilis,  de  Angelo  Dei,  Ilalre, 
1702.  De  Angelo  interprete,  1707.  Ilengstenberg's  Christologie, 
p.  219,  seq.i  (translated  by  Reuel  Keith,  D.  D.,  vol.  i.  164.) 

1  Hcngstenberg's  Christologie,  ii.  1  abtli.  p.  23,  (Keith's  Tr.  ii.  23,)  should  also 
be  compared,  where  he  discusses  the  "Angel  of  Jehovah"  in  Zechariah.  Since  iu 
that  place  (as  Dr.  Hengstenberg  aigues,  and  as  we  also  think  is  most  probable,) 
this  angel  of  God  differs  from  the  Angelus  interpres,  the  delineation  of  Zechariah, 
which  in  so  many  points  of  view  is  important  for  Christology,  coincides  best  with 
the  older  theological  view  of  the  "Angel  of  Jehovah."  (See  also  Geschichte  dcs 
Alten  Bundes  von  J.  H.  Kurtz,  2te  verb.  Auti.  Berlin,  1853,  i.  §  50,  and  Genesis 
V.  F.  Dclitzsch,  2te  Ausg.  Leipz.  1853,  i.  830-337.    Tr.) 


The  Doctrine  of  the  Louos.  59 

Stcuclel  has  offered,  indeed,  in  his  Wliitsuntide  Programme 
of  1830 :  de  Deo  occulto  et  manifesto  iu  libris  V.  T.,  some 
striking  remarks  against  that  view,  although  his  own  explana- 
tion is  unsatisfactory.  At  present,  most  concur  in  the  view 
that  in  the  use  of  the  word  -iNSr?  by  the  Old  Testament  writers, 
there  exists  a  certain  indeterminateness,  that  sometimes  (as  the 
word  does  not  properly  designate  a  personal  being,  signifiea 
Icgatio,  not  Icgatus,)  they  entitle  a  concrete  appearance  of 
God  ^N^?,  at  others  give  the  name  to  a  personal  created  being.^ 
(Hitzig  on  Isaiah,  p.  622,  v.  Coelln's  Bibl.  Theol.  i.  p.  190, 
seq.  Baumgarten-Crusius,  Bibl.  Theol.  p.  307.)  But  in  the 
former  case  even,  God,  in  as  far  as  he  reveals  himself  to  men, 
is  distinguished  from  God  in  himself;  he  speaks  of  him,  refers 
to  him,  he  is  his  representative. — The  expression,  Is.  Ixiii.  9, 
"the  angel  of  his  face,"  is  peculiar,  a  name  given  here  to  au 
angel  who  is  the  mediator  of  what  God  does  for  Israel.  We 
could  hardly  explain  the  term  as  Steudel  does,  by  Matt,  xviii. 
10  ;  rather  :  "  the  angel  in  whom  I  am  by  my  active  providen- 
tial presence." — We  must  consider,  also,  the  exceedingly  re- 
markable passage.  Exodus  xxxiii.  12-23.  Here,  first  of  all, 
Moses  implores  the  Lord  to  make  known  to  him,  him  who  is 
to  be  sent  with  him.  The  answer,  v.  14,  is :  "  My  face  shall  go 
with  thee,"  and  he  adds:  "Z  will  bring  thee  to  rest."  There- 
upon Moses  repeats  his  request :  "Yea,  thy  face,  yea,  thou  must 
go  with  us,"  and  God  replies:  "The  very  thing  thou  askest  I 
will  do."  Moses,  now  emboldened,  desires  to  see  the  glory  of 
God.  The  answer  is :  "  My  beauty  ('>'t3)  thou  shalt  see.  I  will 
pass  by  thee ;  when  I  am  by,  thou  shalt  look  after  me,  (""^nx)  but 
my  face  ('JS)  thou  canst  not  see."  First  of  all,  it  is  necessary 
to  observe,  at  this  point,  that  the  'J3  is  used  here  in  difierent 
senses.  For  where  it  stands  in  opposition  to  '"^nx,  it  desig- 
nates the  profundity  of  the  Godhead,  as  the  face  is  the  nobler 
part  of  man.  Where,  on  the  contrary,  the  face  of  God  is 
said  to  go  with  them,  it  is  a  circumlocution  for  person^  as  in 
many   other   places.     There   is,    besides,    a   distinction   made 

1  Onl^-  ill  this  -way  can  tlic  contradiction  be  harmonized,  tliat  in  Exodus  xxiii.  20, 
seq.  the  sending  of  the  angel,  in  whom  is  the  name  of  God,  is  represented  as  an 
evidence  of  the  grace  of  God,  while  on  the  contrary,  ch.  xxxiii.  2-5,  the  sending  with 
them  of  au  angel  only,  is  regarded  as  a  sign  of  the  withdrawal  of  his  favor. 


60  Chap.  L  — Tue  Logos. 

hero  between  an  inner  and  an  outer  side  of  God,  his  essence 
and  his  appearance ;  the  former  remains  closed  to  man,  the  lat- 
ter is  opened.  It  is  called  the  glory,  the  beauty  of  God.  This 
glory  of  God,  at  other  times,  appeared  also  to  the  people, 
('- 1133)  Exod.  xvi.  10,  xxiv.  16,  xl.  34,  1  Kings  viii.  11. ^ — 
The  word  of  God  is  also  mentioned  as  mediating  the  creation 
of  the  world,  Ps.  xxxiii.  6,  (see  2  Pet.  iii.  5;)  and  in  Ps.  cxlvii. 
15,  Is.  Iv.  11,  as  mediating  the  government  of  the  world,  the 
manifestation  of  the  divine  energy.  (See  the  Festprogramm 
of  Olshausen  on  Hebr.  iv.  12,  in  his  Opusciil.) — The  Spirit  of 
God,  from  the  very  beginning  of  the  world,  appears  as  the 
fructifying,  motive  principle,  and  is,  furthermore,  the  jDrinci- 
ple  by  which  all  animated  creatures  have  life,  (Ps.  civ.  29,  30, 
Job.  xxxiv.  14,)  and  by  which  men  have  wisdom  and  sanctify- 
ing 'power,  (Ps.  li.  13,  cxliii.  10.) — Wisdom,  also,  that  is,  the  attri- 
bute of  God  which  assigns  to  things  their  objects,  appears  in  the 
Old  Testament  with  a  certain  independency,  even  in  Job  xxviii. 
12.  seq.  more  distinctly  Prov.  viii.  22,  seq.  She  is  called  the 
daughter  of  God,  who  arose  as  the  firstling  of  his  work,  (n'^x"? 
i2in)  before  the  foundation  of  the  earth  she  was  anointed 
queen  of  the  world;  at  the  creation  of  the  world,  she  was  by 
God's  side  as  the  artificer  by  whom  he  arranged  the  whole. 
"  The  relation  between  God  and  the  world,  and  between  wisdom 
and  the  world,  is  contemplated  as  that  of  a  tender  parental 
love."^    (Ewald  Poet.  BB.  d.  A.  T.  iv.  p.  76.) 

Yet  more  clearly  does  this  distinction  of  God  appear  in  that 
working  out  of  Old  Testament  views  which  we  find  in  the 
Apocryi^ha.  According  to  Ecclesiasticus  i.  1-10,  wisdom  is 
from  eternity  with  God,  before  all  that  is  finite  she  proceeded 
from  God,  and  was  poured  out  upon  all  his  works;  accord- 
ing to  xxiv.   14,  (Eng.  Tr.  xxiv.  9,)  created  from  the  begin- 

1  Steudel's  mode  of  treating  this  part  of  ExoJ.  xxxiii.  in  the  dissertation  we 
have  cited,  is  very  unsatisfactory.  He  understands  it  that  the  vision  of  the  glory 
and  beauty  of  God  is  here  refused  to  Moses,  (p.  29;)  the  whole  narrative,  in  his 
opinion,  means  that  the  attributes  of  God,  either  singly  or  collectively,  cannot  be 
known  by  man  in  their  essence,  that  man  can  only  afterward  recognize  therein  the 
traces  of  the  divine  mercy,  (see  xxxiv.  6,  in  which  there  is  cei'tainly  a  reference 
to  xxxiii.  22.) 

2  The  older  theologians  used  Prov.  xxxi.  4,  to  prove  that  wisdom  is  also  called 
the  Son  of  God.  That  expression,  and  indeed  the  whole  passage,  has  certainly 
never  been  satisfactorily  explained. 


The  Doctrine  of  the  Logos.  61 

niug-  before  the  world,  and  enduring  to  the  end,  she  has 
entered  into  the  children  of  Israel,  and  has  founded  her  glory 
in  Jerusalem,  and  poured  herself  forth  in  the  Book  of  the  Law, 
(Ecclesiasticus  xxiv.  10,  seq.)  According  to  Baruch,  also,  wis- 
dom has  been  given  to  Israel,  and  has  been  made  known  in  the 
Book  of  the  Law  for  all  eternity,  (eh.  iii.  37,  38,  iv.  1.)  In 
the  Wisdom  of  Solomon,  written  in  Alexandria,  wisdom,  from 
eh.  vii.  7,  to  ch.  xi.  is  depicted  as  the  reflected  splendor  of  the 
eternal  light,  the  breath  of  the  power  of  God,  the  effluence  of 
his  glory ;  in  her  is  an  understanding  spirit,  holy,  one  only, 
going  through  all  rational  spirits,  (ch.  vii.  22-26,)  in  all  ages 
entering  into  holy  souls,  she  prepares  them  to  be  prophets  of 
God,  (ch.  vii.  27.)  An  approximation  to  what  John  teaches  of 
the  Logos,  is  presented  in  these  Apocryphal  writings,  in  this, 
especially,  that  they  speak  of  a  certain  embodiment  of  wisdom 
in  the  people  of  Israel,  in  its  law,  and  in  its  prophets. — The 
question,  whether  in  the  expressions  used  in  Ecclesiasticus  and 
the  Wisdom  of  Solomon,  wisdom  {ao(pia)  is  simply  a  poetical 
personification,  or  is  regarded  by  the  authors  dogmatically  as  a 
distinct  hypostasis,  has  for  a  long  time  been  variously  answered. 
The  view  to  which  Liicke  assents,  which  is  now  most  com- 
monly entertained,  and  in  our  judgment  is  the  true  one,  is 
this,  that  in  the  Book  of  Proverbs,  and  in  Ecclesiasticus,  there 
is  merely  a  personification,  but  that  this  personification  in  the 
Wisdom  of  Solomon,  from  ch.  vii.  22,  passes  over  into  a  dog- 
matic hypostatizing.  See  also  Dahue,  Alexaudrinische  Reli- 
gionsphilosophie,  ii.  p.  134,  seq.  154,  seq. 

We  must  further  trace  the  doctrine  after  the  type  of  the  Jews 
of  Palestine  and  those  of  Alexandria.  The  Chaldee  paraphrasts, 
from  whom  we  ascertain  the  former,  never  speak  of  God  as  opera- 
ting immediately,  but  constantly  represent  him  as  acting  through 
the  mediation  of  the  N"jn'P.  or  i^an  the  word  of  God.  In  them 
we  have,  Gen.  iii.  8,  Deut.  iv.  12,  "  The  voice  of  the  ivord  of  God 
spake ;"  Gen.  xlix.  18,  the  Jerusalem  Targum  translates :  "I  wait 
not  for  liberation  through  Samson  or  Gideon,  but  for  salvation 
through  thy  word."  Jonathan,  in  particular,  in  place  of  the 
K-iq'r?  frequently  employs  the  term  Shekinah,  "the  habitation 
of  the  splendor,  the  gloiy,"  corresponding  to  the  "glory"  in 

T 


62  Chap.  I.  —  The  Logos. 

which  God  revealed  himself  under  the  Old  Testament,  (cf.  the 
Septuagint,  Deut.  xii.  8,  and  see  2  Peter  i.  17.)  The  Memra 
is  also  employed  in  a  sense  parallel  with  angel  of  the  Lord, 
Judg.  11,  seq.  (J.  H.  Michselis,  de  usu  Targumim  anteju- 
daico,  Halse,  1720.  Keil,  Opusc.  ii.  p.  526.)  Under  the  cooper- 
ation of  the  Oriental  and  Greek  philosophy,  these  tendencies 
of  the  doctrine  of  the  hidden  and  revealed  God  were  carried 
out  further  by  the  Cabbalists.  Two  leading  works  of  this  liter- 
ature, the  Book  Jezira  and  the  Book  Sohar,  are,  to  appearance, 
of  so  late  an  origin,  that  the  latter,  at  least,  can  only  be  regarded 
as  an  interpolated  writing  of  the  Rabbi,  Moses  Leon,  (see  Tho- 
luck's  Commentatio  de  ortu  Cabbalse,  1837,)  of  the  thirteenth 
century,  but  they  follow  more  ancient  speculations.  In  Sohar  is 
found  only  the  distinction  between  a  great  and  small  counte- 
nance of  God,  (T^J^  I'i'f  T"^^)  an  open  and  closed  eye ;  in  the 
Book  Jezira,  the  Revealer  is  called  the  brightness  of  the  unity 
of  God,  (nnnxn -inn.) 

As  to  Philo,  it  is  this  Alexandrian  Jew,  so  conversant  with 
Plato,  in  whom  the  inmost  affinity  of  the  Greek  with  the  He- 
brew wisdom  meets  us,  for  the  God  of  Plato,  the  ov,  the  auzb  to 
dya^ov,  does  not  himself  appear  in  this  world  of  becoming,  but 
is  mediated  through  the  ideas ;  Plato  had  also  spoken  of  a  voDc 
^aacXixbi;  iv  tyj  tou  Acoq  (puoec,  (a  regal  principle  of  intelligence  iu 
the  nature  of  Jove,)  (Phileb.  p.  30.  d.  Steph.)  Thus  did  a  more 
perfect  doctrine  of  the  Logos  evolve  itself  to  the  Alexandrian. 
The  absolute  God  begat  his  counterpart  in  the  Logos,  (though 
only  a  relative,  not  an  absolute  one,  for  the  Logos  is  only  §e6<:, 
not  6  ??£oc,)  who  is  the  sum,  the  fxr^rpoTtoXc^  of  the  divine  dopdfisc(; 
or  coiai,  the  y.6a[xo^  vor^roi; ;  after  this  was  the  xoajxoz  aia&rjroi; 
formed,  th^-ough  it  he  operates  in  the  world.  This  sum  of  the 
divine  dumjutsc^  Philo  calls  Xoyo:;,  which  term  he  prefers  to 
that  of  aoipio.,  partly  because  in  the  sense  of  reason,  it  is  closely 
connected  with  the  Platonic  voDc,  and  in  the  sense  of  ivord, 
with  the  Old  Testament,  partly  because  the  word  as  tlwught 
rendered  exterjial,  presents  a  designation  conformable  to  the 
xoafio^  voTjToz  stamped  upon  the  actual  world.  This  XbyoQ  he 
also  denominates  6  Trpto^oraro;:  oib:;  too  &eou,  (the  eldest  son  of 
God,)  6  Tipcozbyopoz,  (the  first  born,)  and  even  6  ovjTspo^  &^bQ,  (the 


The  Doctrine  of  the  Lo«os.  C3 

second  God,)  although,  as  he  adds,  iu  xazaypTJersi.  lie  sometimes 
uses  (TO(fca,  too,  in  the  same  sense  as  ?.6yo^.  (Diihne,  Alexandri- 
nische  Rehgionsphilos.  i.  p.  220.) 

If  we  seek  for  the  term  6  Xoyoc:  before  John,  we^nd  it  pre- 
dominant only  in  Philo.  Out  of  his  writings,  to  wit:  it  occurs 
but  once,  Ecclesiastic,  xxiv.  26,  (28,)  as  a  designation  of  the 
creative  word  of  God,  and  "Wisdom  viii.  15,  as  a  designation  of 
the  punitive  power  of  God,  which,  in  poetical  personification,  is 
represented  as  an  angel.  This  fact  might  easily  lead  to  the 
idea  that  John's  doctrine,  if  not  directly,  yet  mediately,  might 
be  connected  with  that  of  Philo.  This  opinion,  first  maintained 
by  Ballenstedt,  (in  the  book  "Philo  and  John,"  Gottingen, 
1812,)  has  recently  been  embraced  by  the  major  part  of  the 
theologians.  De  AVette  and  Liicke  also  concur  in  it ;  the  latter 
says :  "It  is  impossible  to  mistake  as  to  the  immediate  historical 
connection  of  John's  doctrine  of  the  Logos  with  the  Alexan- 
drian in  its  more  perfect  form,  as  it  is  presented  in  Philo."  In 
fact,  since  Gfrorer's  work  on  Early  Christianity,  the  belief  has 
•been  embraced,  that  even  the  Pauline  form  of  the  doctrine  of 
the  Logos  is  connected  with  the  Alexandrian  Wisdom,  (Col.  i. 
15,  16,  2  Cor.  iv.  4,  1  Cor.  i.  47,  viii.  6 ;)  in  regard  to  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews,  (ch.  i.  1,  seq.)  this  was  believed  still  earlier, 
(see,  opposed  to  this,  Tholuck's  Commentary,  2d  ed.  p.  67.  Eng. 
Trans,  i.  129.)  On  this  point,  also,  De  Wette  and  Liicke  are 
in  harmony  with  Gfrorer,  (Liicke,  Komm.  3d  ed.  i.  Thl.  p. 
284,  seq.  290.)  For  proof,  Liicke  appeals  to  Gfrorer,  Philo,  &c. 
ii.  p.  280,  seq.  and  Dahne  in  his  work  before  quoted,  ii.  p. 
237,  seq. 

We  will  first  glance  at  the  question,  whether  it  is  probable 
that  the  Alexandrian  G-nosis  had  also  found  an  entrance  among 
the  Jews  of  Palestine.  Of  that  which  Gfrorer  advances,  much 
needs  a  sifting  before  it  can  be  received ;  much  is  unsound,  or 
at  least  precarious.  Proceeding  on  the  supposition  that  the 
Essenes  were,  beyond  doubt,  an  offshoot  of  the  sect  of 
Egyptian  Therapeutfe,  he  would,  from  this  fact,  derive  the 
'date  at  which  the  Alexandrian  Gnosis  was  transplanted.  But 
at  the  very  beginning,  that  derivation  of  Essenism  from 
Egypt  is  very  precarious;  Neander,  too,  in  the  most  recent 
edition    of   his    Churcli   History,    1842,    1   Thl.    p.    105,    ex- 


64  Chap.  I. — The  Logos. 

presses  an  opinion  adverse  to  it.  The  establishing  of  that 
date  rests  throughout  on  error.  Gfrorer's  strongest  argument  is 
the  passage  adduced,  p.  349,  from  a  Karaite  author,  according 
to  which,  Simeon  Ben  Schetach,  a  Rabbi  of  Palestine,  who  had 
been  banished  to  Egypt  some  eighty  years  B.  C.  is  alleged  to 
have  brought  with  him  out  of  Egypt  a  Kabbala,  that  is  a  Tradi- 
tion "of  which  not  the  remotest  trace  is  said  to  remain  in 
the  written  law."  This  passage,  which  is  given  in  full  in 
Trigland  ISTotitia  Karseorum,  p.  87,  seq.  does  not,  however, 
refer  at  all  to  what  we  call  the  Caballa,  that  is,  the  metajjliysical 
speculations  of  the  Jews,  but  to  the  Talmudic  doctrine,  whose 
genuineness  the  Caraite  writer  attempts  to  invalidate,  inasmuch 
as  it  was  derived  from  Egypt.  The  Rahhinic  writers,  too,  who 
make  us  acquainted  with  Ben  Schetach,  say  no  more,  than  that 
through  him,  on  his  return  from  Egypt,  the  "oral  tradition" 
was  invested  ^vith  new  brilliancy.  (Liber.  Cosri.  edit.  Buxt.  p. 
240.)  It  is  true,  other  learned  men,  Brucker,  especially,  in  his 
Hist.  Philos.  ii.  706,  have  advanced  the  opinion,  that  the 
statement  of  the  Jews  to  which  we  have  alluded,  is  inaccurate, 
and  that  Simeon  more  probably  introduced  into  Palestine  the 
Alexandrian  metaphysics.  This  opinion,  however,  is  a  mere 
hypothesis.  Gfrorer,  Dahne,  and  in  unison  with  them, 
Liicke,  appeal  further  to  the  traces  of  Alexandrian  views  in 
Josephus,  and  to  the  fact  that  the  Jewish  writers  complain  of 
the  influence  of  the  Greek  wisdom  in  Palestine,  and  that 
Gamaliel  also  was  acquainted  with  it.  Whatever  is  to  be  estab- 
lished by  Josephus,  is  exceedingly  precarious ;  in  the  passages 
cited  from  the  Talmud,  the  point  is  :  what  are  we  to  under- 
stand by  the  " Greek  ^\dsdom,  the  r\':iv  noon?"  It  is  certainly 
too  hasty,  without  anything  further,  to  understand  by  it,  "the 
allegorical  exposition."  See  in  addition  what  I  have  remarked 
on  this  expression  in  the  Treatise  before  alluded  to,  de  Ortu 
Cabbalse,  p.  8.  Although  from  the  beginning  we  have  been 
far  from  regarding  as  impossible,  an  influence  on  Palestine 
derived  from  the  Alexandrian  theosophy,  yet  we  feel  ourselves 
forced  to  declare,  that  what  has  hitherto  been  urged  to  sustain 
it,  does  not,  in  our  judgment,  warrant  the  confident  language 
that  has  been  employed.  Liicke  himself  is  disposed  to  think 
that  with  the  theosophic  views  of  the  Chaldee  paraphrasts,  and 


The  Doctrine  of  the  Logos.  65 

of  Simon  Magus,  there  has  been  a  cooperation  of  Gnostic 
elements,  wliich  were  brought  back  on  the  return  from  the 
exile.  In  this  case,  the  necessity  is  still  less  of  supposing  an 
influence  derived  from  Alexandria.  As  it  is  granted  that 
Alexandria  itself,  in  the  centuries  immediately  preceding 
Christ,  was  influenced  from  the  East,  is  not  the  remark  at  once 
suggested,  that  Palestine,  also,  may  have  been  touched  from 
the  East?  Compare  here  the  weighty  language  of  Neander 
used  by  him  with  reference  to  Simon  Magus,  in  the  Pflanzung 
der  Christlichen  Kirche,  3d  ed.  i.  p.  80.^  That  John  had 
adopted  his  doctrine  of  the  Logos  during  his  residence  in 
Palestine,  is  nevertheless  not  maintained,  but  rather  the  belief 
that  the  Palestinian- G-nostic  type  of  this  doctrine  is  to  be  met 
with  only  in  Paul  and  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.^  John, 
on  the  other  hand,  in  Ephesus,  a  city  where,  as  in  Alexandria, 
various  religious  elements  were  mingled,  might  (not  indeed  by 
the  study  of  Philo's  writings,'  but  from  the  circle  of  his  own 
intercourse,)  have  become  familiar  with  the  Alexandrian  type 
of  the  doctrine  of  the  Logos,  and  adapted  it  to  Christ.  To 
the  adoption  of  this  view,  in  the  first  place,  we  are  urged  by 
no  necessity  whatever.  If  we  bring  together  the  points  of  the 
Old  Testament  to  which  the  doctrine  of  the  Logos  can  be  linked, 
if  we  connect  with  those  passages  which  Liicke  has  enumerated 
those  that  he  has  passed  over,  (he  has  made  no  reference  to  the 
"Angel  of  Jehovah,"  and  to  Exod.  xxxiii.  while  Nitzsch,  in  his 
Dissertation  "  On  the  Essential  Trinity  of  God,"  in  the  Stud. 
u.  Ki-it,  1841,  2  H.  p.  316,  seq.  attaches  great  importance  to 
them ;)  little  in  fact  remains  to  be  done  to  develope  it  to  the 
point  at  which  we  meet  it  in  the  Prologue  of  John.  Nor  is  the 
fact  to  be  passed  over,  that  in  its  connection  in  the  doctrine 

1  In  this  place  Neander  cites  from  a  Palestinian  Apocryphal  work,  a  passage 
overlooked  by  Gfrorer  and  Dahne,  which  yet,  more  than  any  thing  before 
adduced  from  Palestinian  authors,  embodies  a  spirit  allied  to  the  Alexandrian 
theosophy. 

«  Strauss,  also,  Glaubenslehre,  i.  p.  419,  seq.  supposes  the  Christology  of 
Paul  to  proceed  from  an  acquaintance  with  the  Hellenistic  Apocrypha,  that  of 
John  from  a  direct  adaptation  of  the  doctrines  of  Philo. 

s  Gfrorer  also  thinks  that  the  Apostle  did  not  derive  his  views  from  the 
works  of  Philo,  but  from  a  widely  extended  circle.  The  circulation  of  the 
writings  of  these  theosophists  must  have  been  limited  indeed,  if  it  be  true,  as 
Valckenaer  thinks  he  can  show,  that  even  Philo  had  never  read  the  writings  of 
his  great  predecessor,  Aristobulus.     See  Valckenaer  de  Aristob.  p.  95. 

7* 


66  Chap.  L  — The  Logos. 

of  Philo,  the  Logos  has  a  different  meaning  from  that  which 
it  has  in  its  connection  in  the  Christian  doctrine  of  the  Trinity. 
In  Philo  it  is  not  so  much  the  principle  of  the  revelation  of 
God  with  God  himself,  as  that  of  revelation  to  the  world.^ 
(Bruno  Bauer,  in  his  Zeitschrift  f.  spekul.  Theol.  i.  2,  in  the 
Dissertation  "iiher  den  alttestamentl.  Ilintergrund  des  Ev^ 
Joh." — On  the  Old  Testament  background  of  the  Gospel  of 
John.) 

Be  the  question  as  it  may  as  to  whether  the  Evangelist  is 
indebted  mediately  to  the  influence  of  Philo  for  the  doctrine 
of  the  Logos  in  this  shape,  yet  is  the  point  of  essential  im- 
portance this,  whether  he  and  Paul  have  associated  only  in  an 
incidental  manner,  their  Gnosis,  with  their  faith  in  Christ. 
Against  this  we  must  declare  ourselves  in  the  most  decided 
manner.  We  fully  subscribe  to  what  has  been  said  by  Neander 
in  his  Pflanz.  3d  ed.  ii.  p.  690,  (Planting  and  Training,  i.  505 :) 
"  Certainly  it  could  be  nothing  merely  accidental  which  induced 
men  so  differently  constituted  and  trained  as  Paul  and  John, 
to  connect  such  an  idea  with  the  doctrine  of  the  person  of 
Christ,  but  the  result  of  a  higher  necessity,  which  is  founded 
in  the  nature  of  Christianity,  in  the  power  of  the  impression 
which  the  life  of  Christ  had  made  on  the  minds  of  men,  in  the 
reciprocal  relation  between  the  appearance  of  Christ,  and  the  arche- 
type that  presents  itself  as  an  inward  revelation  of  Cfod,  in  the 
depths  of  the  higher  self -consciousness.  And  all  this  has  found  its 
point  of  connection  and  its  verification  in  the  manner  in  which 
Christ,  the  unerring  witness,  expressed  his  consciousness  of  the 
indwelling  of  the  divine  essence  in  him."  ^  Li  fact,  the  witness  of 
Christ  of  himself,  that  he  is  the  Son  of  God,  which  is  found  not 

1  Frommann,  Joh.  Lehrbegriff,  p.  142,  alleges  also,  as  a  distinction,  that  the 
Logos  of  Philo  came  into  being,  -while  on  the  contrary,  the  Logos  of  John  ^^  was 
in  the  beginning."  But  as  John  also  regards  the  Father  as  the  Original,  as 
God  /car'  i^oxijv,  the  "was"  employed  by  the  Evangelist  cannot  exclude  the 
idea  of  generation  from  God.  Though  Philo,  on  the  one  side,  calls  the  Logos 
"first  born,"  on  the  other  he  designates  him  as  "-without  beginning."  As  he 
makes  time  to  commence  -with  the  world,  he  could  not  regard  the  being  begot- 
ten as  a  temporal  relation. 

2  Compare  with  this,  Neander's  Kirchengeschichte,  i.  3,  p.  989 :  "  Providence  had 
60  ordered  it,  that  in  the  intellectual  world  in  which  Christianity  made  its  first 
appearance,  many  ideas,  apparently  at  least,  closely  related  to  it,  should  be  current, 
in  which  Christianity  could  find  a  point  of  connection  for  the  doctrine  of  a  God 
revealed  in  Christ." 


The  Dogma  of  tue  Logos.  67 

only  in  Joliii,  but  iu  Matt.  xi.  27,  xviii.  35,  ("iW^  heavenly 
Father,")  xxii.  44,  xxiii.  37,  xi.  10,  (cf.  Mai.  iii.  1,)  and  xxviii. 
18, 20,  is  quite  sufficient  to  explain  the  application  of  the  doctrine 
of  the  Logos  to  him.  And  if  no  other  necessity  for  supposing 
a  connection  with  Philo  can  be  established,  the  whole  matter 
is  narrowed  to  this,  that  the  Evangelist,  from  the  circle  around 
him,  borrowed  the  designation  by  the  name  Logos,  "in  order  to 
lead  those  who  busied  themselves  with  speculation  on  the 
Logos,  as  the  centre  of  all  theophanies,  to  lead  them  from 
their  religious  idealism  to  a  religious  realism,  to  the  recognition 
of  that  God  who  was  revealed  in  Christ."'  Neander,  same  work, 
p.  549,  (Eng.  Tr.  402.)  In  the  same  manner  entirely,  Nitzsch, 
(in  his  work  already  quoted,)  p.  321,  expresses  himself,  and 
protests  against  the  idea  that  the  Christology  of  Paul,  of  John, 
and  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  presents  merely  a  concep- 
tion which  was  the  growth  of  time,  (p.  305.)  Frommann,  (in 
his  work  quoted,)  p.  146,  says  :  "  We  do  gross  violence  to  the 
exalted  and  simple  Christian  spirit  of  our  Apostle,  if  Ave  repre- 
sent him  as  an  immediate  disciple  of  that  Alexandrian  scho- 
lasticism which,  with  all  its  show  of  monotheism,  was  close 
upon  the  borders  of  pantheism."  Bruno  Bauer  himself,  in  his 
Kritik  der  evang.  Geschichte  des  Job.  p.  5,  declares  that  the 
doctrine  of  the  Logos  is  to  be  ascribed  to  existing  elements 
only  thus  far:  " that  they  invested  with  new  importance,  and 
advanced  to  a  more  decided  form,  views  already  firmly  established 
in  the  mind  of  the  Disciple  of  the  Lord ;"  the  Apocryphal  books, 
he  remarks,  might  already  have  excited  reflection  upon  the 
internal  distinction  of  the  Godhead,  and  adumbrated  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Logos.     Cf.  also,  Olshausen's  Comm.  p.  30,  seq. 

n.  The   Dogma  contained  in  the  Doctrine  of  the  Logos. 

The  view  vndely  embraced  at  the  end  of  the  eighteenth  cen- 
tury, and  defended  by  Teller,  Loffler,  Stolz,  Eichhorn,  Am- 
mon  and  others,  that  the  Logos  in  this  place  is  but  a  personifi- 
cation of  the  divine  reason,  as  in  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon,  ch. 

1  As  early  as  Count  Lynar,  in  his  Paraphrase  of  the  Gospel  of  John,  Halle,  1771, 
we  have  the  remark:  "The  Logos,  a  term  under  which,  as  every  one  knows,  both 
Jews  and  Gentile?  of  the  present  time  understand  something  more  than  human, 
under  which  name  I  propose  to  describe  Jesus,  who  is  not  yet  sufficiently  under- 
stood,"    Morus  takes  the  same  view. 


68  Chap.  L  — The  Logos. 

vii.  27,  X.  16,  17,  may  be  regarded  at  this  day  as  superseded ;  a 
confutation  of  it  may  be  found  in  an  Essay  by  Siisskind,  in 
Flatt's  Mao^azin.  f.  Dogmatik  u.  Moral  St.  10.  As  at  this  time 
a  dogmatic  hypostatizing  is  acknowledged  in  the  "Wisdom  of 
Solomon  itself,  there  is  the  less  hesitation  in  conceding  it  here. 
It  is  now  the  problem  of  Theology  to  grasp  the  relation  of 
this  hypostasis  to  God,  or  rather  in  God.  Exegesis  cannot  well 
avoid  linking  itself  here  to  the  results  of  Dogmatik. 

In  place  of  the  term  urtooTaat^,  abstractive  rpoTio^  uTidp^sux:, 
Idcozrji;,  commonly  employed  in  the  East,  the  Western  Church 
used  the  term  person.  Yet  this  term  is  not  applied  to  the  hy- 
postases of  the  Godhead  in  the  sense  in  which  it  is  used  of  human 
individuals.  The  unsatisfactory  character  of  the  expression  was 
felt,  in  fact,  very  strongly  already,  by  Augustine,  who  says : 
"Tres — quidtres?"  (three — three  what?)  and  elsewhere:  "per- 
sonse,  si  ita  dicendse  sunt,"  (persons,  if  they  may  so  be  called.) 
Person  applied  to  men,  designates  the  human  individual  as  an 
impress  of  the  conception  of  the  human  species  under  an  incom- 
municable modification  of  being  in  the  single  one.  In  this 
sense,  the  term  cannot  be  applied  to  the  Godhead,  partly  be- 
cause Godhead  is  not  a  conception  of  a  species,  but  exists  once 
only,  and  partly  because  the  same  essence  belongs  to  all  the 
persons,  and  the  formula  of  the  Church  runs :  Una  essentia  in 
tribus  personis.  It  is  very  certain  that  the  Aristotelian  Boe- 
thius,  whose  definition  became  the  current  one  in  the  Occi- 
dental Church :  "  Persona  est  naturae  rationalis  indi vidua  sub- 
stantia," by  no  means  proposed  in  that  way  to  define  the  divine 
persons,  but  designated  the  divine  Trinity  as  diversitas  relati- 
onum,  (de  trinitate,  c.  5,  p.  159,  seq.)  And  thus  the  specula- 
tive theologians  of  the  West  commonly  used  the  expression, 
subsistentise,  relationes  subsistentes,  (Thomas,  Summa.  qu.  40, 
Art.  2.)  The  persons  then  of  the  Godhead,  are:  reed  dis- 
tinctions, having  a  necessary  basis  in  the  essence  of  the  Gfodhead, 
and  at  the  same  time  are  relations.  God  has  knowledge  of  him- 
self in  a  triple  action  of  self-consciousness ;  he  knows  himself  as 
subject,  as  object,  and  at  the  same  time  as  the  identical  in  sub- 
ject and  object.  ^    As  an  analogy,  the  human  spirit  may  be 

1  See  Nitzsch,  (in  place  already  cited, )  who  shows  that  the  reference  of  the 
Trinity  to  a  necessary  internal  Modality,  if  you  choose  to  call  it  so,  can  by  no  means 
be  denominated  Sabellianism. 


The  Dogma  of  the  Logos.  GO 

referred  to  in  its  self-distinguishing,  as  tJnnJcer^-and  as  thoufjht 
of  itself,  and  again,  as  act  if  thinking.  God  as  object  of  him- 
self is  the  Word,  for  in  the  Word  (that  is,  regarded  as  an  in- 
ternal thing,)  the  spirit  becomes  objective  to  itself  The  Word 
is  consequently  the  principle  through  which  God  is  revealed  to 
himself.  The  Word  is  distinct  from  him,  and  at  the  same  time 
the  distinction  is  taken  away,  for  God  would  not  have  perfectly 
rendered  himself  objective,  had  not  (so  to  speak,)  his  thought  of 
himself  been  as  great  and  as  substantial  as  he  is.*  As  he  now 
contemplates  himself  in  the  Word,  he  beholds  the  fullness  of  his 
own  essence,  and  in  this  the  archetypes  of  the  world,  for  the  works 
of  God  which,  according  to  Rom.  i.  20,  mirror  "the  eternal 
power  and  Godhead  "  of  God,  must  have  been  thoughts  of  God. 
In  the  Word,  therefore,  lies  the  xbaixoc,  votjTo:;,  (the  intelligible 
world,)  and  so  far  the  counterpart  of  God.  The  other  coun- 
terpart of  man,  by  which  he  is  conscious  of  his  individuality, 
is  external  to  him,  God  has  it  in  himself,  in  his  Word.  First, 
in  having  reference  to  this  counterpart,  he  is  also  love.  As 
the  abstract  One,  he  would  be  without  love,  for  it  pertains  to 
the  notion  of  love  to  find  oneself  in  another.  In  his  distinction 
from  his  counterpart,  and  in  his  reference  to  it,  he  is  love. 
This  love,  accordingly,  has  reference  also  eternally  to  the 
world — but  not  to  the  world  in  its  limited  being,  in  its  actually 
entering  on  existence,  but  as  it  is  rendered  objective  to  him  in  the 
"Word,  in  his  own  essence.  It  is,  then,  not  a  countepart  for 
itself,  but  only  for  him.  In  virtue  of  his  love,  it  attains  now 
also  existence  for  itself,  that  is  the  xbaixoc,  vor^rb^  becomes  real- 
ized in  the  xbaiioc  aiad-Tizb^',  the  creation  of  the  world  ensues. 
Hence  we  have  the  Bible  formula,  that  the  world  was  created 
of  the  Father,  by  the  Son.  (John  i.  3,  1  Cor.  viii.  6,  Eph.  iii. 
9,  Col.  i.  16.)  This  explains,  too,  why  every  revelation  of  God, 
■whether  in  the  Old  Testament,  (John  xii.  41,)  in  the  conscious- 
ness of  the  human  soul,  (John  i.  5-9,)  or  in  Christ,  is  referred 
to  the  Logos.  What  does  the  expression,  "  God  reveals  him- 
self," mean,  but  this  :  he  imparts  the  thought,  the  knowledge 


1  Luther   also  calls  the   Logos    "a   discourse,"  or   a  "  thought  of  God   of  him- 
self;"  the  dissimilarity  in  human  analogy  he  traces  profoundly  to  this,  that  God  is 
causa  sui,  and  then  adds :   "although  in  fact  our  word  gives  u  little  iuformatiou,  in- 
deed gives  cause  for  meditating  on  the  thing." 
F 


70  Chap.  I. — Prologue. 

of  himself?  God's  thought  of  himself,  God  objectively  con- 
ceived, is  the  Logos.  In  Christ,  however,  the  Logos  has  be- 
come man,  inasmuch  as  this  man  is  the  archetype  of  humanity, 
which  was  contemplated  in  the  Logos,  which  archetype,  in  virtue 
of  that,  views  God  with  the  same  absoluteness  of  knowledge,  is 
participant  also  of  the  love  of  God,  in  the  same  way  as  the  Logos 
in  his  preexistent  state.^  Luther  says  strikingly:  "The  other 
sons  of  God  lirst  become  such  through  this  Son,  who,  therefore, 
is  the  only  begotten  " — their  creation,  like  their  new  creation, 
he  says  further,  is  founded  in  the  Word,  to  wit :  through  the 
original  man. 

Among  the  theological  discussions  of  a  very  recent  date, 
in  regard  to  the  Trinity,  the  greatest  interest  is  claimed  by 
the  missives  of  Liicke  and  Nitzsch,  the  first  of  whom  presents 
with  plainness  the  considerations  opposed  to  the  doctrine  of  an 
immanent  divine  Trinity,  the  latter,  with  an  equal  absence  of 
reserve,  meets  these  scruples,  (Stud.  vi.  Kritik.  1840,  H.  1, 1841, 
H.  2.)  The  Dissertation  by  Lean  Mehring,  in  Fichte's  Zeit- 
schrift  fur  Spekulat.  Theol.  1842,  5  Bd.  H.  2,  also  deserves 
notice.  Among  the  philosophical  dissertations,  Billroth's 
Religionsphilosophie,  p.  5T,  seq.  and  Erdmann,  Natur  oder 
Schopfung,  (]!Tature  or  Creation,)  p.  70,  seq.  may  be  referred  to. 

Pkologue.  —  V.  1-18. 

The  train  of  thought  in  the  Prologue  is  now  to  be  explained. 
The  grand  thought  which  stands  before  the  soul  of  the  Evangel- 
ist is,  that  the  Logos  has  appeared  as  a  human  person.  The  Evan- 
gelist, however,  starts  from  a  remoter  point,  and  commences 
with  the  thought,  that  from  eternity  the  Logos  has  revealed 
God  to  himself,  (v.  1,  2,)  that  through  him  the  world  has  been 
brought  into  existence,  as  also  the  consciousness  of  God  in  man, 
(v.  3,  4.)     But  mankind  have  not  had  the  proper  disposition  of 

1  As  regards  the  question,  whether  the  Logos  only,  and  not  the  Godhead,  became 
man,  tbe  answer  is  to  be  found  in  the  formula  employed  bj'  Bernard:  Credimua 
ipsam  diviuitatem  sive  substantiam  divinam  sive  naturam  divinam  dicas,  incarnatam 
esse,  sed  in  filio,  (  "we  believe  that  the  Deity  itself,  call  it  divine  nature,  or  divine 
substance,  as  you  please,  became  incarnate,  but  in  the  Son.")  It  is  further  to  be 
remarked,  in  regard  to  Christ,  that  the  sphere  of  his  earthly  being  does  not  present 
the  incarnation  of  the  Logos  in  its  complete  unfolding ;  that  follows  the  condition 
of  exaltation. 


Prologue.  71 

mind  for  this"  light,  (v.  5.)  As  John  purposes  to  make  a  tran- 
sition to  the  personal  appearing  of  the  Logos,  he  prefaces  it 
with  a  mention  of  the  testimony  of  the  Baptist,  which  was 
designed  to  produce  faith  in  him  that  was  to  come,  (v.  6-9.) 
He  that  was  to  come  was,  in  fact,  already  present,  but  had 
been  rejected,  (v.  10.)  He  now  came  to  his  own  peculiar 
people,  and  these  also  rejected  him,  (v.  11.)  But  the  richest 
blessing  became  the  portion  of  those  who  acknowledged  him 
that  had  appeared,  (v.  12,  13.)  Thus  he  prepares  for  the 
delineation  of  the  appearing  of  the  Word  in  flesh,  so  abun- 
dantly rich  in  blessing,  whose  two  grand  benefits,  designating 
them  in  the  strongest  manner,  are  called  the  grace  and  the 
truth,  (v.  14,  17.) 

V.  1.  ^Ev  d.pyl,  in  the  view  of  most  expositors,  is  connected 
with  the  n'tyN").3  ("in  the  beginning")  of  the  Old  Covenant,  to 
carry  on,  as  it  were,  to  a  higher  point,  the  beginning  there 
mentioned.  It  may  be  so ;  nevertheless,  if  that  rt'K'Xi  means 
the  beginning  of  the  creation  itself,  d.pyij  must  here  have 
another  meaning,  for  the  Logos  was  not  merely  at,  but  before 
the  creation  of  the  world.  It  is  most  probable  that  John,  by 
iy  o-pyrj  here  and  d-'  o.pyr^^,  1  John  i.  1,  means  d-'  auouo^,  which 
is  used,  Prov.  viii.  23,  (Septua.)  in  regard  to  wisdom,  in  place 
of  which  Ecclesiasticus  xxiv.  14,  (9,)  has  d-'  dpyj^:;.  "  We  show 
unto  you  r.  ^(or.u  r.  auoucou,"  says  the  Evangelist,  1  John  i.  2. 
Our  conception  cannot  grasp  an  infinite  range  of  time.  When 
we  wish,  therefore,  to  speak  of  eternity,  we  fix  a  beginning, 
which  we  call  original  beginning. — John  says:  "He  tvas  in  the 
beginning;"  but  according  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Church,  the 
Son  is  begotten.  But  as  the  Church  in  this  conception  denies 
the  prius  and  posterius,  it  follows  that  the  existence  of  the  Sou 
is  to  be  regarded  as  posterior  to  that  of  the  Father,  only  in  the 
order  of  ajyjjrehensioii,  not  of  time.  The  sunbeam  is  dependent 
on  the  sun,  and  yet  is  not  later  than  it.  In  fact,  there  is  a 
reciprocal  condition,  since  the  Father  without  the  Son  cannot 
be  Father,  in  fact,  not  self-conscious  God ;  the  efiect  is  thus,  on 
the  other  side,  cause  also. 

17 p6^  with  the  accus.  here  in  the  sense  of  u'ith,  cf  Winer, 
§  53,  h.  and  the  rzapa  aoi,  xvii.  5 ;  so  too  {j  ^cotj)  rj-c^  vjn  7:po;  rbu 
-aripa,  1  John  i.   2.     By  the  word  ^^ivith"  as  indicative  of 


72  Chap.  L — Prologue. — v.  2-9. 

space,  is  designated  that  idea  which  we  call  distinction,  which 
is,  however,  annulled  by  the  d^eoi;  yjv  which  follows,  as  Luther 
expresses  it:  "That  sounds  as  if  the  "Word  were  something 
different  from  God,  he  resumes,  therefore,  and  closes  the  ring." 
Stoi;  is  not  to  be  regarded  as  the  subject ;  the  oDroc,  v.  2,  which 
again  is  connected  with  6  Xoyo^,  shows  that  the  latter  is  the 
leading  idea.  6>£6c  without  the  article,  designates  God  as  the 
divine  substance ;  on  the  other  hand,  6  d^eoz  is  meant  to  desig- 
nate God  as  subject  and  (in  connection  with  what  precedes,) 
the  Father  himself  The  consubstantiality  of  the  Logos  with 
the  Father,  is  thus  expressed,  as  Erasmus  remarks.  Those 
who  maintain  in  general  a  close  connection  of  the  Evangelist 
with  Philo,  suppose  that  ??£oc  without  the  article  signifies,  as 
in  Philo,  God  in  a  subordinate  sense,  6  deorepoq.  The  bear- 
ing of  this  on  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  would  not  be  un- 
essential, for  the  Son  would  in  that  case  no  longer  be  the 
absolute  image  of  the  Father. 

V.  2,  3.  The  discourse  again  takes  up  the  first  words  of  v. 
1,  as  the  thought  of  the  creation  of  the  world  connects  itself 
with  that  of  the  eternal  existence  of  the  Word.  Only  in  virtue 
of  his  eternal  existence  could  the  Logos  effect  the  temporal 
existence  of  the  world.  The  temporal  beings  are  the  thoughts 
of  God  which  have  become  existent,  and  which  were  contained 
in  archetype  in  the  Logos ;  according  to  Col.  i.  16,  all  things 
were  created  in  the  Logos.  The  proposition  x^opl^  abrou  x.  r.  X. 
is  not  to  be  regarded  as  merely  rhetorical,  repeating  in  a 
negative  form  the  thought  which  before  had  been  expressed 
positively.  That  a  special  emphasis  is  attached  to  it,  is  clear 
from  the  fact  that  we  have  not  the  mere  ohdiv.  But  why  this 
express  testimony,  that  everything  existed  through  the  media- 
tion of  the  Logos?  According  to  Liicke  and  Olshausen,  to 
exclude  the  Philonic  view  of  the  vkf],  (matter  as  a  principle  of 
being.)  But  the  testimony  is  designed  to  assure  us,  not  of  the 
dependence  of  everything  on  Crod,  but  of  its  existence  by  means 
of  the  Logos.  Must  not,  then,  the  purpose  of  the  Evangelist 
rather  have  been  to  represent  the  Logos  as  exalted  above  all 
orders  of  spirits,  as  Paul  expressly  gives  prominence  to  the 
very  same  idea  to  the  Colossians,  Col.  i.  16. 

V.  4,  5.     Luther:  "John  now  sharpens  the  pin  and  makes  a 


Prologue.  73 

new  point,  as  he  designs  to  bring  in  the  thread  of  the  human 
race,"  (an  alhision  to  lace-weaving.  Tr.)  As  the  existence  of 
beings  has  its  root  in  the  Logos,  so  also  has  their  life.  This 
life,  however,  was  in  men  a  seJf-rejlccted  life,  a  consciousness 
of  God  eftectiiated  by  self-consciousness.  That  (pwn:  does  not 
strictly  designate  the  self-consciousness,  is  manifest  from  v. 
5  and  9,  (cf.  Matt.  vi.  23,)  yet  the  consciousness  of  God  pre- 
supposes a  capacity  of  self-consideration.  KazaAa/x^di^siP  can- 
not idiomatically  signify  "suppress,"  (Origen,  Chrysostom, 
Schulthess,)  it  means  "comprehend,"  in  the  spiritual  sense,  too, 
in  expressing  which  the  middle  voice  is  usual,  cf.  v.  10,  iyvoj, 
and  iii.  19.  In  unison  with  this,  Paul  says,  Rom.  i.  19,  that 
God  was  manifest  in  the  heart  of  the  heathen,  and  was  not 
acknowledged.  The  abstract  axorla  designates  the  concrete  col- 
lective idea  of  humanity  not  penetrated  by  the  consciousness 
of  God.  "With  the  Aorist,  we  have  ^acpsc  in  the  present,  as  the 
Evangelist  has  before  his  mind  an  act  yet  in  continual  progress. 

V.  6-8.  The  thought  that  mankind  did  not  comprehend  the 
Logos  at  that  time,  already  excites  in  the  mind  of  the  Evangel- 
ist a  reflection  on  the  unbelief  that  attended  his  appearing  in 
humanity.  He  thus  had  occasion  for  the  admonitory  remark, 
that  by  God's  arrangement  through  the  Baptist,  John's  cher- 
ished teacher,  preparation  for  faith  in  the  incarnate  Logos  had 
been  made,  and  so  far  rendered  easy — "that  all  men  (are  the 
heathen  already  embraced  in  this,  as  Luther  supposes  ?)  through 
him  might  believe."  The  explicit  assurance  in  v.  8,  appears 
superfluous,  nevertheless,  v.  20  and  ch.  iii.  28,  show  (cf.  Paul,  Acts 
xiii.  25,)  that  the  establishment  of  what  is  here  asserted,  seemed 
of  importance  to  the  Evangelist ;  the  earliest  traces  of  disciples 
of  John  the  Baptist,  who  regarded  him  as  the  Messiah,  are 
found  in  the  second  centurj^,  but  there  might  already  exist  an 
occasion  for  these  remarks  of  the  Evangelist,  in  the  fact  that 
even  after  the  appearance  of  Jesus,  a  secluded  circle  of  John's 
disciples  remained. — The  construction  with  Tva  serves  for  the 
circumscribing  of  the  idea  of  should,  (cf  ix.  3,  xiii.  18,  Mark 
V.  23.) 

V.  9.  The  point  of  time  is  now  specified  at  which  that 
witness  resounded.  The  translation  of  Luther,  which  is  also  the 
one  of  the  Vulgate,  Syriac,  Chrysostom,  Calvin,  (and  the  English 

8 


74  CuAP.  I. — Pkologue. —  v.  10-13. 

authorized  version.  Tr.)  cannot  therefore  be  allowed,  since 
to  justify  it,  an  outo^  would  be  indispensable  before  the  rjv.  We 
must  connect  the  7ju  with  ip^ojutuou,  and  yju  Ip^fpfx.  is  susceptible 
of  two  interpretations.  It  may  mark  the  imperfect:  "He 
came  just  then  into  the  world,"  (De  "Wette,  Liicke,  3d  edit.) 
On  this  view,  indeed,  the  thesis  cannot  well  be  connected  with 
what  precedes,  which  would  seem  to  make  rore  necessary, 
although  this  objection  may  be  met  by  the  consideration,  that 
the  following  theses  also  are  pretty  abrupt.  There  is  yet 
another  difficult}^,  however.  If  we  take  it  in  this  way,  v.  10 
must  be  understood  of  Christ  after  his  appearing,  and  would 
not  the  l^v  then  be  out  of  place  ?  since  De  Wette  and  Liicke 
themselves  cannot  avoid  translating:  "was  (appeared.")  We 
prefer,  therefore,  with  Theodorus  of  Mopsuestia,  Grotius, 
Lampe,  Schott,  Olshausen,  to  understand  the  partic.  pres. 
Ip'foiitvoc,  of  him  who  was  shortly  to  enter  the  world,  and  to 
translate  :  erat  venturum ;  the  proposition  is  then  more  closely 
connected  with  v.  8,  as  an  elucidation.  'AXtj&cvo^^  "  that  which 
answers  to  its  idea,"  (iv.  23,  vi.  32.)  A  share  of  the  light  is 
indeed  ascribed  to  the  Baptist,  but  the  true  light  illumines  all 
men. 

Y.  10, 11.  With  the  thought  that  the  Light  was  first  to  come, 
is  connected  by  reference  to  v.  5,  what  obviates  a  possible 
misunderstanding,  and  by  which,  at  the  same  time,  the  thought 
expressed  in  v.  11  is  strengthened.  As  v.  9  has  already 
referred  to  the  personal  appearing,  we  now  have  the  masculine 
ahxov.  Instead  of  a  conjunction  making  a  clear  logical  deter- 
mination, we  have,  like  the  Hebrew,  merely  za/,  the  first  '/.ai 
having  an  augmentive,  the  second  an  adversative  sense.  V.  11 
can  only  be  understood  of  the  personal  appearing  of  the  Logos, 
as  is  shown  by  the  y()3z  and  by  v.  12  and  13 ;  though  Luther 
interprets  r^Wt  as  referring  to  Christ's  appearance  subsequent  to 
his  baptism.  Ta  Idea,  his  own,  that  is  his  own  property, 
peculiar  possession,  not  essentially  ditferent  from  the  concrete 
ol  coco:.  If  this  designated  no  more  than  the  previous  xoa/io^, 
it  would  be  the  men  in  general,  who  belonged,  in  a  more 
specific  sense  than  other  beings,  to  the  Logos,  since  they  are 
conscious  life,  inasmach  as  they  bear  in  them  the  conscious- 
ness of  God ;  but  the  impression  is  irresistible,  that  I'dioc  i« 


Prologue.  75 

meant  to  express  more  than  6  xoafto^.  In  this  light,  the  view 
of  Erasmus,  Luther,  Calvin,  Beza,  and  the  recent  w^riters,  com- 
mends itself,  that  Israel  is  referred  to  (l»c  ayo'ivtafta  xlr^itovon'.a:: 
auTo'j,  ("as  tlie  portion  of  his  inheritance,")  Ecclesiasticus  xxiv, 
13,  Exod.  xix.  5.  If  we  take  I'bcoc  in  this  sense,  can  we  not 
say  that  the  whole  Gospel  is  an  expansion  of  this  theme,  since 
the  party  in  apposition  is  always  designated  by  John  as  ol 
"loudawc  ?  (see  on  i.  19.) — The  rejection  of  Messiah  expressed  in 
as  unqualified  a  manner  as  in  iii.  32,  receives,  nevertheless,  in 
V.  12,  its  limitation.  The  Baptist  had  designed  to  lead  "  all  " 
to  faith,  (v.  7,)  but  the  great  mass  had  been  blind. 

V.  12-13.  The  Evangelist  depicts  the  more  copiously  the 
richness  of  blessing  shared  by  the  few.  ' Eqooaia  has,  in  the 
classics,  the  meaning  of  prerogative,  ^  d^Uoacr,  (Beza,  cf.  1  Job. 
iii.  1,)  but  certainly  not  in  the  'Hew  Testament,  nor  can  that  of 
duva/iK:,  internal  power,  (1  Cor.  i.  18,)  be  supposed  here ;  better, 
therefore,  according  to  the  classic  usage,  where  it  has  the  mean- 
ing of  ahility,  as  Erasmus :  ut  liceret  filios  Dei  fieri,  (that  they 
might  become  sous  of  God.)  In  what  way  is  this  ability 
brought  about  ?  We  may  answer  in  the  words  that  follow :  by 
the  X^P'"^  ^^^^  dXij&sia,  (the  "grace"  and  "truth.")  Tkxua  ^so~j 
cannot  here  have  the  derivative  sense  "protege,  favorite;" 
the  thought,  rather,  as  v.  13  shows,  is  that  of  a  regeneration,  a 
participation  of  the  divine  (puac<:,  (2  Pet.  i.  4,)  so  that  Christ 
is  preeminently  the  olb^  r.  ??£oD,  cf  1  John  iii.  9, 1  Pet.  i.  22,  23. 
At  the  same  time  the  condition  or  mediation  of  the  new"  birth 
is  given.  Faith.  The  idea  of  spiritual  birth  is  then,  v.  13,  ren- 
dered more  distinct  by  putting  it  into  antithesis  with  natural 
birth.  We  may  regard  the  three  members  as  distinct  designa- 
tions ;  Luther :  the  corporeal  descent,  the  adoption,  the  sonship 
as  a  title  of  honor,  or  the  second  and  third  as  subdivisions  of 
the  first,  though  in  that  case  ouze — ours  would  be  required. 
The  blood  through  which  the  chyle  is  distributed  to  the  differ- 
ent parts  of  tlie  body,  is  the  seat  of  life,  hence  the  connection 
between  child  and  parents  is  called  blood  relationship,  and  in 
classic  usage,  also,  we  have  the  expression  "  to  spring  from  the 
bloody  that  is  from  the  seed  of  any  one,"  (Acts  xvii.  2G.)  The 
plural  is  used  in  the  classic  poetry  for  the  singular.  The  idea 
of  the  older  theologians  that  these  words  have  a  controversial 


70  Chap.  L — Prologue. — v.  14. 

aim  against  the  Jewish  pride  of  Abrahamic  descent,  cannot  be 
well  allowed  in  this  connection.  The  lowliness  of  bodily  descent, 
is  depicted  in  antithesis  to  spiritual  generation,  yet  more  par- 
ticularly in  the  expression,  "  the  lust  of  the  flesh,"  (Eph.  ii.  3,)  that 
is,  the  natural  impulse,  and  the  "  desire  of  man,"  that  is,  a  more 
particular  limitation  of  the  fleshly  desire.  Over  against  this 
stands  the  "divine  counsel  of  love."  '£?  marks  in  Greek,  not 
merely  the  point  of  material  origin,  but  also  the  efficient  cause, 
cf.  on  iii.  6. 

V.  14.  In  V.  11,  the  incarnation  of  the  Logos  was  already 
presupposed.  Linked  with  the  thought  of  the  regeneration, 
efiected  thereby,  that  incarnation  is  now  depicted  with  an  en- 
thusiasm inspired  by  its  glory.  The  Evangelist  speaks  with  the 
enthusiasm  of  an  eye-witness,  and  with  like  fervor  he  speaks  in 
the  beginning  of  his  first  Epistle,  written  in  extreme  old  age. 
Kai,  as  in  the  Grreek  classics,  and  like  the  Latin  atque,  serves  for 
the  continuation  or  elucidation  of  a  discourse,  cf.  v.  16,  19,  24. 
Idp^,  like  the  fuller  phrase  adp^  xal  aliia,  (Ileb.  ii.  14,)  desig- 
nates humanity  with  reference  to  its  character,  as  endowed  with 
the  senses  and  passions,  cf.  Heb.  v.  7,  2  Cor.  xiii.  4.  We  are 
not  to  understand  by  it  the  body  merely,  which  would  lead  us 
into  the  error  of  ApoUinaris,  which  was,  that  Christ  had  not  a 
human  soul,  but  that  in  its  place  was  substituted  the  Logos. 
The  word  adp^  is  selected  by  the  Evangelist  to  mark  the  incar- 
nation as  an  act  of  humiliation,  perhaps,  too,  with  a  glance 
toward  the  docetic  denial  of  the  sensuous  nature.  (1  John  iv. 
2.)  In  men,  in  general,  the  Logos  was  divine  consciousness  as 
potential,  but  not  come  to  energy  in  will  or  cognoscence; 
in  Christ,  the  divine  consciousness  alike  in  will  and  cognos- 
cence attains  to  absolute  energy,  and  therefore  unites  itself 
with  the  self-consciousness  in  personal  unity.  Ixrjvoco,  pro- 
perly "to  pitch  tent,"  in  a  wider  sense,  ^^  to  divell"  The  ex- 
pression is  used  solemnly  in  the  first  sense,  to  express  the  reality 
of  his  abode  among  men;  (Luther:  "not  like  the  angel  Ga- 
briel,") cf.  fwuYjp  TTocctv,  John  xiv.  23  ;  though  the  image  of 
pitching  a  tabernacle  may  serve  to  express  the  transientness  of 
the  abode  of  God's  Son  in  the  lotvl^  condition  of  humanity. 
(Phil.  ii.  7.)  According  to  Olshausen,  Mej^er  and  Liicke,  there 
is  an  allusion  to  the  name  Shekinah,  (that  is,  dwelling,)  see  above, 


Prologue.  77 

p.  62,  as  too,  the  mention  of  the  do^a,  which  properly  formed  the 
Shekinah,  immediately  follows.  That  the  Evangelist  was  indu- 
ced to  the  selection  of  the  Greek  axrjvouv  by  the  mere  similarity 
of  sound  with  the  Hebrew  w^ord,  is  not  to  be  supposed,  and  if 
he  designed  an  allusion  to  that  idea,  the  expression  "he pitched 
a  tabernacle"  is  not  distinct  enough;  yet  the  mention  of  the 
do^a  certainly  favors  the  view.  Ao^a  designates,  first  of  all,  in 
the  Old  Testament,  the  radiance  (11:33)  the  sensible  token  of  the 
presence  of  God;  to  this  a  reference  might  be  found,  as  though 
the  Evangelist  would  say :  "  the  sensible  manifestations  of  God 
under  the  old  covenant  are  now  completed,"  for  in  them  that 
which  appeared^  and  he  tvho  appeared,  were  distinct,  but  this  is 
the  case  no  more.  According  to  New  Testament  phraseology, 
the  do^d  is  imparted  to  Christ,  and  them  that  are  his,  only  in 
the  other  ivorld.  (vii.  39,  xii.  23,  xiii.  32,  xvii.  1,  5,  24.)  To 
this  oo^a  pertains  also  the  immediate  dominion  of  the  spirit 
over  nature ;  since  this,  however,  is  averred  of  the  Saviour 
even  in  this  world,  John  here,  and  ii.  11,  already  ascribes  to 
the  Son  of  God  a  oo^a  in  this  world.  It  is  nevertheless  possi- 
ble that  in  this  he  had  in  his  mind  the  spiritual  glory,  also,  of 
Christ.  Luther  has  less  fitly  everywhere  translated  d(Ka^£iu  by 
verklaren,  (transfigure,)  instead  of  verherrlichen,  (glorify.)  'i?c 
is  to  be  taken  as  the  falsely  so-called  3  veritatis,  (this  was 
thought  to  stand  merely  for  asseveration,)  in  Hebrew,  i.  e.  the 
object  is  attached  to  its  idea,  "such  as  is  due  one  who  is  the 
only  begotten,"  cf.  Is.  i.  7,  N"eh.  vii.  2,  Matt.  vii.  29.  ^/oi>o;'£vijc, 
"that  which  exists  once  only,  that  is,  singly  in  its  kind." 
"Would  the  others  become  what  Christ  is,  (John  xvii.  22,  Rom. 
viii.  29,)  they  become  such  through  the  iqoua'ia  bestowed  by 
him.  Ilaoa  Ttarpo^  may  be  construed  with  oo?«,  but  it  is 
better  to  connect  it  with  /wvoyei^oo'-,  in  which  lies  the  verbal 
conception  of  yeuurj&suzor.  Olshausen  thinks  that  here  only  the 
Logos  in  itself  is  denominated  fjouoyevvj'-,  and  appeals  to  the 
wv  er'c  T.  xd?.~ou  T.  Tcarpo^,  v.  18,  but  as  we  shall  show,  not  with 
justice.  nXr^pTj^  m^y?  hy  anacoluthon,  be  referred  to  /wuuysvou'T^ 
as  Eph.  iii,  17,  but  it  is  better  to  take  xai  zd^taaafiz^a — -arpor  as 
a  parenthesis  called  forth  by  strong  emotion,  so  that  Tzlrjprj^  refers 
to  iarfiViofriv.  All  that  Christ  has  been  to  the  world,  is  com- 
prised in  the  two  blessings  of  salvation,  yo-p^:  and  d.A7jdeca\  what 

8* 


78  Chap.  I. — Prologue. —  v.  15-17. 

tliey   embrace  is  brought  out  more  clearly  in  the  antithesis, 
V.  17. 

V.  15.  He  again  returns  to  the  testimony  of  his  beloved 
instructor,  and  inserts  it  parenthetically  in  the  same  way  as  the 
exclamation  in  v.  14  ;  the  mention  of  the  X'^P^^t  ^- 1^'  i^  again  then 
connected  with  v.  14.  The  vivid  feeling,  as  though  what  he 
speaks  of  were  actually  present,  causes  him  to  use  the  present,  and 
even  xkxpayz  belongs  to  the  perfects,  that  have  the  force  of  the 
present ;  the  expression  cited  is  the  one  employed  by  the  Baptist 
on  the  occasion  mentioned  in  v.  30.  "  Ov  sIttov  with  the  accus. 
of  the  person,  of  whom  we  speak,  Matthire,  ii.  162,  cf.  ou  iypaif^e, 
V.  46.  The  discourse  of  the  Baptist  has  the  pointed  antithetical 
character  which  is  displayed  in  the  prophetic  expressions  in 
the  Old  Testament.  The  exposition  must  be  determined  by 
the  force  of  i/iTvpoa&eu.  According  to  the  current  usage,  this 
designates  only  before  with  reference  to  space  or  time,  but  not 
precede7ice  ;  it  is  accordingly  interpreted  of  preexistence,  among 
the  more  recent  writers,  by  "Wahl,  Bretschneider,  Lex.  3d  ed. 
Meyer,  Hengstenberg,  (Christol.  iii.  490);  in  the  proposition 
which  specifies  the  reason,  they  then  understand  ttcxoto^  also  as 
referring  to  the  preexistence.  If  with  this  conception  we  were  to 
translate  yeyovev,  "he  has  become,"  it  could  not  well  be  taken 
except  in  an  Arian  sense — the  Arians,  indeed,  make  their  appeal 
to  this  interpretation ;  but  we  may  also  translate,  "  he  has  been." 
In  that  case,  however,  it  is  impossible  to  deny  the  tautological 
character  of  the  proposition,  and  if,  to  avoid  this,  we  understand 
TvpajTO^  of  dignity,  why  have  we  rjv,  and  not  i(TTc  ?  "We  must, 
then,  proceeding  from  the  signification  which  relates  to  physical 
space,  adopt  the  meaning  of  precedence,  as  in  Genesis  xlviii.  20, 
(Septuag.)  thus :  "he  has  been  preferred  before  me,  has  obtained 
a  higher  position" — which  meaning  may  also  be  justified  hj 
V.  27,  where  the  Baptist  acknowledges  himself  as  filling  but 
the  position  of  a  slave  in  relation  to  Christ.  The  TcpaJroc: 
which  follows,  has  likewise  been  referred  to  the  dignity/  by 
Chrysostom,  Erasmus,  Calvin,  Maldonatus,  Lampe,  in  which 
case,  however,  as  we  have  already  remarked,  we  would  expect 
iart,  and  prefer,  therefore,  to  refer  it  to  the  preexistence,  (Lu- 
ther, Beza,  Calovius,  Le  Clerc,  Liicke.)  The  eternal  being  of 
the  Logos,  or  Messiah,  is  the  reason  of  his  precedence.     As  the 


Prologue.  79 

language  here  relates  only  to  a  comparison  of  two  persona, 
TTptozoc:  is  used  in  the  sense  of  TzpoTspo-: ;  the  genitive  is  used  in 
consequence  of  the  comparison.  (Winer,  4th  ed.  p.  222.)  The 
criticism  of  Strauss  and  Bauer,  as  this  expression  is  one  that 
could  not  have  been  anticipated  from  the  Old  Testament  posi- 
tion of  the  Baptist,  regards  it  as  a  fiction  of  the  Evangelist, 
derived  from  his  own  point  of  view.  In  reply  to  this,  we  ob- 
serve :  1,)  that  the  historic  notice  in  v.  30,  in  regard  to  the 
expression,  is  an  argument  for  its  authenticity;  2,)  so,  too,  is 
its  pointed  antithetical  character ;  compare  the  language  of  the 
Baptist,  iii.  27-30 ;  3,)  that  the  view  of  the  preexistence  of  the 
Messiah  was  not  foreign  to  the  Jewish  conception,  (Bertholdt, 
Christ.  Judifior.  p.  131.  Schmidt,  Bibl.  f.  Kritik.  u.  Exeg.  i.  p. 
38.  Justin  Martyr,  Dial.  c.  Tryph.  p.  226,  336,  ed.  Col.)  and 
especially,  that  a  man  like  the  Baptist  might  have  been  led  to 
it  by  an  examination  of  such  passages  in  the  Old  Testament, 
as  Mai.  iii.  1,  Micah  v.  1,  Daniel  vii.  13.  It  cannot,  indeed,  be 
demonstrated  that  John  represented  himself  as  that  messenger, 
that  Elijah,  who  is  spoken  of  in  Mai.  iii.  1,  23,^  but  it  had  been 
done,  according  to  Luke  i.  16,  17,  76,  by  Zacharias,  his  father ; 
Christ  himself  designates  him  in  the  same  way.  Matt.  xi.  10, 
Mark  ix.  12,  13 ;  the  passage  of  Isaiah  which  the  Baptist  ap- 
plies to  himself,  is  like  that  in  Malachi,  in  fact,  according  to 
Hengstenberg,  the  basis  of  it;  how  probable  is  it,  then,  that 
the  Baptist  himself  had  observed  and  applied  to  himself  spe- 
cially, the  words  in  Mai.  iii.  1,  and  that  is  the  very  passage  in 
which  the  Messiah  is  designated  as  the  Lord  and  Angel  of  tht 
Covenant.  May  he  not  also  have  referred  the  7(U[jco<:  in  Mai.  iii. 
23,  (Eng.  Tr.  4,  5,)  to  Christ  as  Jehovah? 

Y.  16,  17.  The  ■fjntl':  Tzavxzz  clearly  points  to  the  members 
of  the  Christian  Church,  the  Tzlrjpcojxa  to  Tzlrjprj^,  and  -/^dpcv  to 
yjipi-o':^  V.  14 ;  w^e  cannot,  therefore,  regard  these  as  words  of 
the  Baptist,  as  Origen,  Erasmus  and  Strauss  suppose.  Kal  be- 
fore -^dpiv  is  epexegetical.  'JvW,  "instead  of,"  that  is,  one  in 
place  of  the  other,  alternatel}",  as  we  say,  "  one  after  another," 
thus  ever  neiv  gifts  of  grace;  the  fullness  is  consequently 
an   ezhaustless   one,  sufficient  for  all.     Instead  of  this  use  of 

1  What  TTcngstenberg,  in  pass.  abv.  ref.  to,  advances,  to  establish  a  reference  to 
Mai.  iii.  1,  in  the  words  6  d-iau  jxov  tpx-,  does  not  seem  to  me  to  be  convincing. 


80  Chap.  I. —  Prologue.  —  v.  18. 

dure  ill  Greek,  it  is  more  common  to  employ  Tzapd  with  the 
accusative. — V.  17  proves  this  ;f^(Wr  to  be  the  distinctive  quality 
of  the  New  Covenant.  The  antithesis  which  is  made  in  this 
place  by  John,  as  in  Paul,  too,  between  )^6/j.o(:  and  xdpe'^y  is 
worthy  of  remark.  The  xd(>e^  is  the  leading  idea,  but  the 
dXr^&tca  also  forms  an  antithesis  to  vbp.or.  Bengel :  Lex  iram 
parans  et  umbram  habens,  (the  law  preparing  wrath,  and  hav- 
ing the  shadow.)  By  the  legal  relation,  condemnation  falls 
upon  men;  the  law,  indeed,  in  its  sacrifices  and  ceremonies, 
had  grace  also,  but  only  symholicallij^  (Col.  ii.  17,  Heb.  x.  1,)  as 
opposed  to  which,  the  unveiled,  absolute  truth  now  appears. 
For  iyiusTO,  John  could  not  well  have  written  idd&/^ ;  it  is  the 
historical  fact  of  the  appearing  of  Christ  in  humanity,  by  which 
grace  and  truth  have  become  the  portion  of  mankind.  Cf  the 
iyivT^^v],  1  Cor.  i.  30. 

V.  18.  Now  follows  a  detailed  statement  in  relation  to  the 
d.h^&eia.  The  proposition,  that  God  cannot  be  looked  upon, 
stands  in  the  Old  Testament,  Exod.  xxxiii.  20  ;  the  mode,  how- 
ever, in  which  even  in  that  passage  the  view  of  the  back  of 
God  is  spoken  of,  leads  to  the  belief  that  in  that  proposition 
not  merely  a  sensible  vision,  but  an  adequate  knowledge  also 
was  contemplated.  Cf.  dopazo^,  Col.  i.  15.  A  decided  distinc- 
tion is  supposed,  John  vi.  45,  46,  between  hearing  God  and 
seeing  him,  and  the  first  is  attributed  to  men  in  general,  the 
second  to  the  Son  alone.  Hearing  causes  us  to  have  percep- 
tion of  the  object  in  motion,  consequently  in  communication  with 
us ;  vision  perceives  the  object  in  the  condition  of  rest,  is 
consequently  better  adapted  to  express  that  knowledge  which 
springs  from  personal  unity  with  God.  That  sole  absolute 
knowledge  of  God,  Christ  also  claims  for  himself  in  Matt.  xi. 
27.  That  in  the  passage  before  us,  6  fxouoysiJr]^  u[6c  designates, 
as  Olshausen  thinks,  the  Logos  only,  is  shown  to  be  untenable 
by  the  ixeTuoi:  i^r^yjaazo ;  the  language  is  employed  to  mark  the 
Logos  personally  united  with  the  humanity.  Tioc  ^eou,  used 
of  Christ,  refers  in  the  profoundest  sense  to  the  unity  of 
essence,  as  Christ  himself  intimates.  Matt.  xxii.  43.  "We  have, 
consequently,  in  this  chapter,  v.  50,  6  u?6c  too  ^eoo  and  6 
^aadeht;  too  ^  laparjX  associated,  as  also  xi.  27,  and  Matt.  xvi.  16, 
xxvi.  63. — FA<;  has  reference  to  the  corporeal  idea  "  to  be  on  the 


Testimony  of  the  Baptist.  81 

breast."  In  oriental  usage,  the  one  best  beloved  lies  in  the 
bosom  of  the  host,  so  that  his  head  rests  on  his  breast,  and  he 
can  impart  and  receive  confidential  communications,  (John  xiii. 
23.)  In  Latin  proverbially:  in  gremio,  sinu,  alicujus  esse; 
Calvin :  "  Scdes  consilii  pectus  est,"  (the  breast  is  the  seat  of 
counsel.)  "^ E^r^yr^aazo  requires  as  an  object  "zV,"  (Eng.  Tr.  him,) 
which  is  not  expressed  in  Greek  and  Hebrew. 

Accrediting  of  Christ  by  the  Testimony  of  the  Baptist. 

V.  19-34. 

The  preparatory  thoughts  have  been  expressed:  the  only 
begotten  of  the  Father,  full  of  grace  and  truth,  has  appeared, 
but — his  own  have  not  received  him.  The  history  which  begins 
at  this  point,  gives  the  amplitication.  The  ol  ' loooatoc  first 
appear  here,  under  which  name  John,  throughout  the  entire 
Gospel,  designates  the  party  inimical  to  the  Son  of  God. 
This  national  appellation  is  ordinarily  regarded  as  a  designa- 
tion of  the  representatives  of  the  people,  hence,  members  of 
the  Sanhedrim.  These  certainly  are  so  designated  in  specie, 
cf.  for  example,  vii.  13,  where  the  dp-^($psc<:  and  ol  '/ouducoc  are 
identified  ;  but  on  the  other  hand,  the  people  are  called  ' looodioc, 
so  as  specifically  to  distinguish  them  from  the  df)^csps7^,  (xii.  10, 
11 ;)  by  the  name' loud a7o:  are  meant,  in  general,  all  with  whom 
Jesus  had  to  deal,  whether  high  or  low,  enemies  or  friends,  cf. 
viii.  31.  A  reason  for  the  use  of  this  generic  name  of  the 
people  by  John,  must  be  sought  for;  we  find  it,  as  has  already 
been  remarked,  p.  17,  (of  the  translation,)  in  this,  that  he  ex- 
hibits the  conflict  between  the  divine  light  and  the  corruption 
of  men  in  the  Jewish  nation,  where,  in  consequence  of  their 
election,  it  presents  itself  in  the  most  glaring  form.' — The 
intimate  connection  of  the  author  of  this  Gospel  with  the 
Baptist,  displays  itself  here  also  in  his  thorough  acquaint- 
ance with   his  testimony.      So   complete  was  his   familiarity 

1  By  an  independent  process  I  have  reached  the  same  conclusions,  especially 
in  reference  to  v.  11,  with  those  presented  in  the  treatise  by  Fischer,  on  the 
expression  ol  'lov6aloi  in  the  Gospel  of  John,  in  the  Tub.  Zeitschr.  1840,  H.  2. 
As  for  the  rest,  the  writer,  who  is  dependent  on  Strauss,  thinks  that  from  the 
data  specified,  the  conclusion  is  justified  that  the  Gospel  was  composed  from  a 
later  Gentile-Christian  point  of  view. 


82  Chap.  L— v.  19-28. 

with  it,  that  he  here  does  what  elsewhere  occurs  only  in  the  his- 
tory of  the  passion,  he  follows  in  chronological  order  the  succes- 
sion of  the  days,  {rrj  iTiaufjcov,  v.  29,  35.  ii.  1,)  and  the  day  on 
which  the  deputation  came  forms  the  starting  point.  "The 
narrator  must  indeed  have  a  personal  and  historical  interest  in 
that  day,  as  was  actually  the  case,  since  he,  as  that  Disciple  whose 
name  is  not  given,  who  at  that  time  left  the  Baptist  for  Jesus, 
had  found  in  those  days  the  influences  that  determined  his 
whole  course  of  life."     (Schweizer.) 

Y.  19-23.  By  the  ' louoaioc,  we  are  evidently  here  to  under- 
stand the  Sanhedrim,  which  necessarily  watches  the  more  closely 
a  teacher  appearing  in  an  extraordinary  form,  as  no  prophet 
had  appeared  for  almost  four  hundred  years.  This  superior 
tribunal  was  also  under  special  obligation  to  prevent  the  ap- 
pearing of  false  prophets,  (Matt.  xxi.  23.)  In  addition  to  this, 
the  Messianic  baptism  performed  by  the  Baptist  could  not 
but  excite  mistrust  and  solicitude,  (John  xi.  48-50,)  for  which 
reason  the  question,  v.  25,  bears  specially  upon  his  baptism. 
We  are  not,  indeed,  to  suppose  that  the  various  opinions  men- 
tioned here  prevailed  in  the  Sanhedrim  itself,  it  is  more  pro- 
bable that  the  popular  views  had  reached  their  ears.  Among 
the  people,  the  intense  longing  for  the  Messiah,  connected 
with  the  extraordinary  features  in  the  appearing  of  the  Bap- 
tist, had  aroused,  during  the  first  excitement,  surmises  whether 
he  might  not  be  the  Messiah.  (Luke  iii.  15,  Acts  xiii.  25.) 
The  importance  which  the  Evangelist  attached  to  the  refusal  of 
any  such  dignity  on  the  part  of  the  Baptist,  is  shown  by  his 
expressing  it,  not  only  in  a  positive,  but  in  a  negative  form. — ''Ozt 
is  used  not  only  in  the  New  Testament,  but  in  the  classics  also, 
to  introduce  the  orat.  directa,  Plato  Critias,  p.  52,  a.  It  was 
very  natural  to  think  of  Elias,  as  Mai.  iii.  23,  was  usually  taken 
in  a  literal  sense,  (Matt.  xi.  14,  Mark  ix.  12.)  Now,  although 
the  Baptist,  as  was  remarked  on  v.  15,  probably  had  referred 
to  himself  the  expressions  in  Malachi,  yet  he  must  respond 
negatively  to  their  question,  since  those  who  inquired,  intended 
not  EHas  in  the  ideal,  but  Elias  in  the  literal  sense.  (Cf  the 
popular  notions,  Mark  vi.  14,  15.)  Besides  this,  some  special, 
distinguished  prophet  was  expected  by  the  people,  as  precursor 
of  the  Messiah,  by  some,  especially  Jeremiah.     (Matt.  xvi.  14, 


Testimony  of  tue  Baptist.  83 

cf.  3  Mace.  xy.  13,  14,  4  Ezra  xvi.  2-18,  2  Mace,  ii.)  In  vii. 
40,  also,  we  are  to  untlerstand  by  6  7:poifr^Trjr,  a  great  prophet, 
preeminently  the  object  of  expectation ;  probably  from  the  in- 
terpretation given  to  Dent,  xviii.  15.  The  brevity  of  the  Bap- 
tist's answers  may  be  accounted  for,  by  the  compendious  char- 
acter of  the  narrative,  but  v.  22  shows  that  he,  in  accordance 
with  his  rugged,  ascetic  character,  actually  answered  no  more 
than  the  question  demanded.  In  other  places,  also,  his  dis- 
courses are  brief  and  pointed.  His  positive  answer  he  gives  by 
quoting  the  verse,  Isaiah  xl.  3,  in  which,  according  to  the  report 
of  all  the  Evangelists,  he  found  a  delineation  of  his  own  mission. 
The  meaning  of  "making  straight  the  way,"  is  bmught  out 
more  clearly  in  the  expressions  derived  from  Malachi,  and 
applied  to  the  Baptist,  (Luke  i.  17.)  The  prophet  in  the  pas- 
sage quoted,  speaks  of  the  manifestation  of  G-od,  yet  the 
Baptist  may  have  understood,  by  the  xopioc:  and  acor-riptov  too 
i&so~j,  (Luke  iii.  6,)  in  a  direct  sense,  the  Messiah. 

V.  24-28.  For  the  question  as  to  the  right  to  baptize,  the 
Evangelist  seems  to  design  furnishing  a  motive,  when  he  states 
that  those  who  were  sent  were  Pharisees ;  this  sect  was  ex- 
tremely rigid  in  matters  pertaining  to  the  ritual.  A  lustra- 
tion of  the  people  in  the  time  of  the  Messiah  was  expected, 
in  accordance  with  Ezek.  xxxvi.  24,  25,  seq.  Mai.  iii.  2,  3,  and 
as  this  was  ascribed  in  the  Old  Testament,  in  part  to  the  Mes- 
siah himself,  in  part  to  his  legates,  we  have,  with  the  Messiah, 
the  prophets  also  here  mentioned  who  were  to  prepare  the 
way  for  his  advent.  Instead  of  outs — ours,  the  best  evidence 
sustains  the  reading  o'joi — ouds.  What  John  means  by  bap- 
tism in,  that  is,  ivith  water,  is  made  clear  by  the  antithesis 
which  he  had  in  his  mind  in  connection  with  it.  In  v.  33,  the 
antithesis  is  ^aTzzc^ei:^  iu  TrusupaT:  d-yico ;  thus  the  merely  ritual 
symbolical  baptism,  and  the  real  baptism,  which  imparts  the 
Spirit,  stand  opposed  to  each  other.  But  in  the  account  given, 
Luke  iii.  16,  with  iv  Tzvvjuaz!  dycoj,  we  have  also  TtupL  If  this 
::uf)c  is  not  to  be  regarded  as  merely  an  explanatory  addition  of 
the  narrator,  if  it  is  the  Baptist's  own  phrase,  (perhaps  a  remi- 
niscence from  Mai.  iii.  2,  3,)  we  have  the  more  special  antithe- 
sis of  a  purification  from  outward,  gross  offenses,  which 
operates  more  in  a  negative  way,  and  an  internal  purification 


84  Chap.  L— v.  29. 

working  positively  throiigli  the  impartation  of  the  Spirit ;  the 
same  antithesis  would  then  meet  us  which  lies  in  the  words 
££7  fiezduocav  and  ii(;  Tzcartv  xal  aipzatv  ajiaprmv.  The  expression 
//iffoc — ol'dazs  presupposes  that  Christ  was  no  longer  in  private, 
that  he  had  already  appeared,  cf.  Luke  xvii.  21,  if  ivTot;  bixcbv 
there  means  "among  you;"  had  the  Baptist  himself  not  yet 
known  Jesus  as  the  Messiah,  would  he  have  said:  ov  ufxt^z  obx 
oYdaret  (Jacobi,  in  the  Studien  u.  Kritiken,  1838,  p.  851.) 
It  appears,  then,  that  we  are  to  suppose  the  baptism  of  Jesus  to 
have  taken  place  before  this  language  was  used,  on  which  point, 
see  what  is  said  at  the  close  of  this  division.  "  Oc: — yiyovEv  is  to 
be  regarded  as  spurious,  as  perhaps,  also,  auroc  iariv.  The  fig- 
urative, concrete  expression,  by  which  the  Baptist  designates 
his  inferiority,  was  fixed,  as  Acts  xiii.  25  shows,  in  the  Evan- 
gelical tradition.  The  untieing  and  bearing  the  sandals,  was 
the  duty  of  slaves;  how  highly  above  himself  must  he  then 
have  esteemed  Christ !  On  the  construction  of  dqco^  with  ha 
instead  of  -with  the  infinitive,  see  Winer,  4th  ed.  p.  312.  (Agnew 
and  Ebbeke's  Transl.  p.  264.)  Origen  supposed  that  for  iv 
Dfj&avia^  the  reading  should  be  ev  Brjd^a^apa^  as  tradition  in  his 
time  assigned  the  latter  place  on  the  Jordan  as  that  at  which 
the  baptism  had  been  performed,  and  no  other  Bethany  than 
the  one  near  Jerusalem  was  known  to  him.  But  we  must  fol- 
low the  unanimous  testimony  of  the  Codices,  and  it  is  just  as 
supposable  that  there  were  two  Bethanys  as  two  Bethsaidas,  to 
which  there  is  probably  an  allusion  in  the  Tiepav  too  'lopodvoo. 
V.  29.  From  the  solitude  in  which  Jesus,  after  his  baptism, 
had  abode,  he  comes  again  to  the  Jordan.  Of  the  object  of 
Jesus'  coming,  nothing  specific  is  mentioned,  since  the  Evan- 
gelist is  concerned  only  with  the  testimony  of  the  Baptist.  If 
the  words  be  not,. as  most  regard  them,  a  sudden  prophetic  in- 
spiration, they  are  yet  uttered  with  a  design  presupposed,  espe- 
cially V.  36,  of  directing  the  Disciples  to  Jesus.  The  grand 
significancy  of  Jesus,  he  finds  in  his  propitiatory  office.  In  the 
expression  6  dpvb^  zoo  d-eoo,  it  is  an  obvious  inference  from  the 
article  6,  that  a  designation  already  well  known  is  alluded  to, 
somewhat  like  iy  pi;^a  too  'haaal,  (Isaiah  xi.  10,  Romans  xv.  12,) 
and  it  is  most  natural  to  think  of  Isaiah  liii.  7.  By  the  genitive 
TOO  ^eou,  this  Lamb  is  more  particularly  characterized,  either  as 


Testimony  of  the  Baptist.  85 

destined  by  God,  or  as  iveU-pleasi?}^  to  God,  cf.  ipya  too  dzo'j, 
(vi.  28.)  Jcneiu  <i//«/>=p;t  xiyj  is  in  many  connections,  equivalent 
to  d<paif>s:7u,  "to  takeaway  sins."  But al'pseu  also  means,  in  the 
Septuagint,  to  bear,  (Lamentations  iii.  27,)  hence  al'f/erj  (hiuf,.  for 
pi!  ^33.  If  the  Baptist  had  in  his  eye  the  prophecy  in  Isaiah  liii. 
we  must  adopt  the  latter  meaning,  since  in  Isaiah  liii.  11,  we 
have  ex2)rcssly  Vaq:  xin  onji;'  xac  za:;  (iixapTia'-  abrcov  dvolau.  The 
])earing  of  the  sins  of  the  world  is,  therefore,  the  suffering  for 
the  sins  of  the  world,  which,  indeed,  is  the  basis  on  which  the 
taking  away  is  accomplished.  It  is  true,  lambs  were  only  used 
under  certain  circumstances  for  sin  offerings  ;*  but  the  more 
readily  could  the  Baptiet  designate  Christ  as  the  expiating 
lamb,  if  he  intended,  at  the  same  time,  to  direct  attention  to 
the  feature  of  patient  suffering,  which  had  been  held  up  by 
Isaiah.  That  the  words  of  the  Evangelist  are  to  be  explained 
in  the  mode  mentioned,  is  confirmed,  too,  by  this,  that  in  Rev, 
V.  6,  12,  xiii.  8,  Christ,  with  reference  to  his  expiatory  death,  is 
called  d()\jiov  ia<payj!jtiuov,  cf.  also,  1  Peter  i.  19.  The  difficulty, 
however,  now  arises,  that  the  Baptist,  on  this  view,  must  have 
known  something  of  a  suffering  Messiah,  and  yet  this  idea  was 
one  which  remained  wholly  unknown  to  the  most  intimate  Disci- 
ples of  Christ,  in  fact,  to  those  very  ones,  also,  who,  like  John,  had 
had  intercourse  with  the  Baptist,  (Matt.  xvi.  21-23.)  Strauss 
and  Bauer  draw  the  inference  that  the  Evangelist  here  also  im- 
putes his  own  creed  to  the  Baptist.  Were  we  compelled  to 
concede  that  Jewish  antiquity  knew  absolutely  nothing  of  a 
suffering  Messiah,  yet  even  then  he  who  concedes  to  the  Baptist 
an  extraordinary  inspiration,  such  as  v.  33  expressly  testifies  of, 
can  have  no  difiiculty  in  allowing  a  similar  one  here.  Do  we  not 
find  a  similar  prophetic  glance  of  the  spirit  in  Simeon,  Luke 
ii.  25  ?  (Krabbe,  Leben  Jesu,  p.  155.)  Had  not  the  Baptist 
already  announced  that  the  Messiah  would  establish  his  king- 
dom only  by  conflict  with  the  portion  of  the  people  whose 
minds  were  alienated  from  God,  (Matt.  iii.  12,  ]S"cander,  Leben 
Jesu,  3d  ed.  p.  6Q,  M'Clintock  and  Blumenthal's  Tr.  §  40.) 
Even  though  he  speaks  here  of  redemption  in  its  widest  extent 

1  Levit.  iv.  32,  Numbers  vi.  14.  Nevertheless,  Btihr,  Symbolik  des  Mos.  Kultus,  ii 
p.  361,  seq.  shows  that  the  daily  morning  and  evening  sacrifices  of  lambs  had  alsi^ 
an  expiatory  force. 

0  9 


86  Chap.  L— v.  30-34. 

— zoo  xoafioi) — yet  this  cannot  appear  strange  upon  the  lips  of 
one  who  had  declared  that  God  could  raise  up  children  to  him- 
self from  the  stones  that  lay  by  Jordan.  But  the  position 
which  has  been  taken  anew  b}'^  De  Wette,  and  falsely  grounded 
on  John  xii.  34,  that  the  times  before  the  Christian  era  were 
entirely  unacquainted  with  a  suffering  Messiah,  cannot  by  any 
means  be  conceded.  Numerous  passages  from  the  Rabbins 
argue  the  very  opposite.  See  Martini,  Pugio  fidei  ed.  Carpzov, 
p.  852  ;  Hulsius,  in  his  instructive  Avork,  with  which  few  are  ac- 
quainted, Theol.  judaica.  Bredse,  1653,  p.  309  ;  Schmidt,  Bibl.  f. 
Krit.  u.  Exeg.  i.  p.  43-49 ;  Hengsteub.  Christol.  I.  i.  p.  252-292, 
I.  ii.  p.  291,  seq.  It  is  true  that  the  age  of  the  Rabbinical 
authors,  from  whom  these  testimonies  are  adduced,  is  uncertain ; 
yet,  supposing  that  the  whole  of  them  wrote  subsequently  to 
the  birth  of  Christ,  would  this  doctrine,  so  hateful  to  a  carnal 
Judaism,  be  brought  out  at  the  very  period  when  the  Chris- 
tians were  everywhere  proclaiming  a  crucified  Messiah  in  that 
preaching,  which  was  unto  the  Jews  a  stumbling  block? 
"Would  the  Jews  have  taken  refuge  in  the  figment  of  a  two- 
fold Messiah,  one  a  suffering,  the  other  exclusively  a  glorious 
one,  if  the  doctrine  of  a  suffering  Messiah  had  not  found  con- 
firmation in  their  ancient  exegetical  tradition  ?  The  opinion 
defended  formerly  by  many,  (Herder,  Gabler,  Paulus,)  that  the 
Baptist  only  meant  to  allude  to  the  gentleness  %vith  which  the 
innocent  martyr  bore  the  sinful  treatment  of  the  world,  (cf. 
Ifppav  atpecv^  1  Mace.  xiii.  17,)  need  no  longer  be  confuted,  as 
it  has  been  universally  abandoned. 

V.  30,  31.  We  have  here  the  expression  of  the  Baptist 
which  has  already  been  introduced,  v.  15.  The  7:epc  ob  sIttou 
refers  to  an  expression  which  he  had  already  employed  in  re- 
gard to  the  appearing  of  Jesus,  as  in  v.  27  the  6  dziaco  fxoo 
ipYP[xtvo(:  alludes  to  an  earlier  application  of  the  same  phrase. 
In  V.  31,  the  baptism  of  Christ  is  already  presupposed  to  have 
taken  place,  for  although  the  rf/.&ov  j^aTtTc^cou  embraces  John's 
whole  work,  yet  the  baptism  of  Christ  must  be  regarded  as  in- 
cluded, in  fact,  must  be  preeminently  the  object  of  allusion, 
since,  not  by  the  activit}^  of  John,  as  preparatory  to  the  future 
appearing  of  the  Messiah,  but  by  the  baptism  of  Jesus,  did 
Jesus  become  (pavspo:;  before  Israel.     K  we  think  now,  accord- 


Testimony  of  the  Baptist.  87 

ing  to  Luke  iii.  21,  of  the  people  as  present  at  the  baptism  of 
Jesus,  and  of  the  grand  aim  of  the  Baptist,  as  that  of  convin- 
cing the  people,  the  (favsnouad^ac  ma}^  he  explained  with  refer- 
ence to  those  focts.  But  that  John  could  have  not  meant  this, 
that  he  rather  regarded  the  conviction  to  be  wrought  in  the 
Baptist  himself,  as  the  grand  aim,  is  clear  from  v.  33,  and  also 
here  from  the  antithesis  obx  j^dscu  auzov.  We  must,  then,  take  it 
in  this  way  :  the  Baptist  had  baptized,  in  order  that  he  might 
learn  to  know  the  Messiali,  and  that  consequently,  the  people 
might  also.  Khxo),  not  "I  also,"  but  "and  I."  It  is  proper  to 
consider  how  the  obx  rjdsiv  auzou  is  to  be  harmonized  with  Matt, 
iii.  14,  in  which  passage  it  is  presupposed  that  prior  to  the  bap- 
tism of  Jesus,  the  Baptist  acknowledged  in  him,  if  not  spe- 
cially, the  Messianic  dignity,  at  least,  a  very  high  one.  Differ- 
ent modes  of  conciliation  have  been  adopted :  1,)  the  journey 
from  Nazareth  to  the  hill  country  of  Judea,  and  back,  would 
take  six  days — the  young  kinsmen  had,  therefore,  visited  but 
once  or  so,  or  not  at  all ;  John,  therefore,  did  not  know  Jesus 
personally,  (so  recently  again.  Hug.)  2,)  in  Matt.  iii.  14,  the  Bap- 
tist testifies  that  he  had  already  known  the  holy  innocence  of 
Jesus,  but  not  Ids  dignity  as  Messiah,  (Hess,  Tittman,  Kuinol, 
Kern.)  3,)  first  at  the  approach  of  Jesus,  he  had  a  presentiment 
that  this  was  the  Messiah,  which  presentiment  was  exalted  to 
an  infallible  divine  certainty  by  the  baptismal  act,  (Bengel, 
Kulm,  Leben  Jesu,  p.  116,)  or  as  Neandcr  (1.  c.  p.  80,)  expresses 
it,  "the  words  oox  f^dscu  are  to  be  understood  relatively  of  a 
knowledge  not  yet  confident ;  in  the  light  of  the  divine  inspi- 
ration, all  earlier  knowledge  seemed  to  him  as  ignorance." 

V.  32-34.  As  the  repetition  at  the  beginning  of  v.  33  shows, 
we  have  not  here  a  testimony  from  another  date ;  the  Evangel- 
ist stops  only  because,  as  in  this  division  in  general,  so  also  here, 
he  is  concerned  with  the  /xarizufica.  The  act  of  baptism  itself,  the 
Evangelist  presupposes  as  known  ;  the  statement  is  peculiar  to 
John  that  the  Baptist  Avas  prepared  by  a  revelation  for  the 
manifestation  at  the  baptism  of  Jesus.  The  dove,  the  symbol 
of  innocence  and  purity,  (Matt.  x.  16 ;)  the  abiding  and  the 
tranquil  hovering  over  Christ,  expressed  the  tranquil  and  equa^ 
ble  movement  of  the  power  of  the  Spirit  in  him,  in  contrast  with 
the   detached   impulses  given  to  the  prophets,  (Isaiah  xi.  2.) 


88  Chap.  L— v.  34. 

According  to  the  description  in  John,  and  also  in  Matthew,  this 
baptism  had  a  significance  preeminently  for  the  Baptist  himself, 
he,  and  no  other  spectator,  beheld  the  opening  heavens  and  the 
dove;  for  had  others  seen  it,  why  the  emphatic  "J saw,"  "the 
same  said  unto  me?''  This  view  does  not  at  all  exclude  the 
supposition  that  Jesus  also  had  the  same  vision,  as  Mark  i.  10 
compels  us  to  believe.^  But  does  it  not  seem  from  Luke  iii.  21,  as 
though  the  people  assembled  at  the  time,  also  saw  the  miraculous 
sign  ?  But  in  the  condensed  phraseology  there  used,  there  lies 
properly  no  more  than  this,  that  Jesus  came  to  the  baptism,  and 
that  the  miracle  attending  it  happened  at  the  same  time  when 
all  the  people  came  to  John's  baptism,  (Usteri,  Studien  u.  Krit. 
1829,  3  H.  p.  444.)  What,  then,  did  John  and  Jesus,  respectively, 
behold  ?  Did  all  occur  outwardly  or  inwardly  ?  Origen  supposed 
that  only  an  emotion  of  the  mind  occurred,  in  virtue  of  which 
the  Baptist  supposed  himself  to  see  outwardly  what  was  revealed 
to  his  internal  eye;  Theodore  of  Mopseustia,  also,  explains 
the  occurrence  as  a  Tzpeo/jtarcxif]  ■&ea)pia.  What  is  said  of  the 
heavens  being  opened,  must,  of  necessity,  be  taken  in  this  way; 
those  who  resist  a  conclusion  of  this  sort  here,  are  nevertheless 
obliged,  in  Acts  vii.  56,  to  concede  an  internal  vision,  where 
Stephen,  in  the  hall  of  the  Sanhedrim,  sees  the  heavens  opened, 
and  Jesus  at  the  right  hand  of  God.  That  Luke,  in  speaking 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  uses  the  expression  acojuaTcxw  ecoe:,  is  not  op- 
posed to  this  view,  for  in  visions  of  this  sort,  that  which  is  seen 
internally  presents  itself  under  the  same  form  in  which  it  is  an 
object  of  sight.  According  to  2  Cor.  xii.  2,  Paul  saw  and 
heard,  and  yet  knew  not  whether  it  occurred  in  the  body  or  out 
of  the  body.  With  this  the  question  connects  itself,  whether 
the  act  of  baptism  had  for  Christ  merely  a  symbolical  signifi- 
cance, or  whether  an  impartation  of  the  Spirit  in  the  act,  is  to  be 
thought  of?  If  we  regard  the  grand  object  of  the  miracle  at 
the  baptism,  to  be  the  certification  to  the  Baptist  of  the  Mes- 
siahship  of  Jesus,  there  is  no  necessity  for  supposing,  in  addi- 
tion, a  special  operation  of  the  Spirit  on  Jesus  bej'ond  that 
which,  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  would  be  induced  by  an  act 
of  inauguration  of  this  kind,  (Neander,  Kern.)     A  solemn  con- 

1  HoflFman,  1.  c.  p.  394,  asks  what  can  be  brought  against  this  view,  since  the 
fact  was  the  same  for  both,  and  the  laws  of  the  soul's  life  are  the  same. 


Testimony  op  the  Baptist.  89 

sccration  of  this  kind  was  undoubtedly  the  solicithig  agent  for 
the  T.vvjixa  in  Jesus,  (John  iii.  34,  Acts  x.  38;)  by  that  solicita- 
tion, however,  of  the  power,  it  was,  in  a  certain  measure,  vivified 
in  him,  in  that  sense,  namely,  in  which  it  is  said,  itebrews  v.  8, 
that  Christ  learned  obedience,  since  the  solicitation  to  the  act 
authenticated  the  propension  to  unaxoij  which  lay  in  him. 

V.  34.  The  perf.  fiz/iap-vpr^xa  presents  the  testimony  as 
closed  and  firmly  established  in  its  validit3\  What  the  idea  of 
ufoc  t^soD  comprehended  in  the  Baptist's  mind,  cannot  be  deter- 
mined with  certainty,  yet  from  what  has  been  observed  on  v. 
15,  it  may  be  inferred  that  he  meant  more  by  the  expression  than 
the  Messianic  dignity  in  general,  c£  on  v.  15  and  18. 

We  have  yet  to  ask,  in  what  relation  the  testimony  presented 
by  John  to  the  legation  stands  to  that  of  a  similar  character 
uttered  before  the  people,  of  which  Luke  iii.  16,  and  Matt.  iii. 
11,  give  an  account.  It  is  certainly  very  arbitrary  criticism, 
when  from  this  harmony  is  drawn  the  inference  that  John's  ac- 
count is  a  mere  arbitrary  remodeling  of  the  narrative  of  Luke, 
when  De  Wette  regards  Luke's  narrative  as  a  corrupted  tradition, 
and  Bauer  sets  down  both  narratives  as  inventions.  The  legation 
certainly  was  sent  after  the  Baptist  had  already  been  in  his  work 
for  some  time ;  if  now,  at  his  first  appearing,  the  people  were 
ready  to  see  in  him  the  Messiah  himself,  (Luke  iii.  15,)  must  he 
not  have  explained  himself?  And  is  there  anything  surprising 
in  the  fact  that  before  the  authorities  he  explains  himself  in  re- 
gard to  his  work  and  destination,  in  the  same  pregnant  expres- 
sions in  which  he  had  addressed  the  people  ?  Is  it  not  evident 
from  V.  30  and  36,  that  he  was  in  the  habit  of  repeating  certain 
pregnant  expressions?  The  expressions,  moreover,  coincide 
only  in  a  single  dictum. — We  must  inquire  further,  how  the  bap- 
tism of  Christ  is  chronologically  to  be  arranged  in  John  ?  The 
opinion  of  Olshausen,  that  it  followed  on  the  evening  of  the 
day  on  which  the  legation  arrived,  or  on  the  morning  of  the 
following  day,  in  whose  later  hours  the  Baptist  gave  the  testi- 
mony, v.  32,  cannot  be  entertained,  for  the  temptation  of  the 
forty  days  is  immediately  connected  with  the  baptism,  and  that 
could  not  possibly  be  brought  into  the  arrangement  here. 
With  entire  unanimity,  the  recent  critics  and  interpreters  fix 

the  baptism  at  a  period  prior  to  the  legation  of  the  Sanhedrim. 

9* 


90  Chap.  I.  —  v.  35-15. 

For  this,  arguments  may  be  drawn  from  the  two  circumstances, 
that  the  Baptist  must  have  been  engaged  in  his  work  for  some 
time,  before  we  can  imagine  that  an  investigation  by  the  au- 
thorities would  take  place,  and  especially  that  we  have  the 
expression  juio-oc — oloaze,  v.  2G.  In  the  third  edition,  Olshau- 
sen,  also,  has  changed  his  earlier  opinion. 

Gathering  of  the  First  Disciples  of  Jesus. — v.  35-52. 

V.  35-37.  John  again  is  standing  at  the  Jordan,  waiting 
for  those  who  are  to  be  baptized,  his  two  disciples  with  him; 
they  can  hardly  be  supposed  to  be  other  than  those  who,  on  the 
previous  day,  had  received  the  significant  testimony ;  for  the 
addition  6  dcpwv — xocr/mou  is  wanting  here,  without  which  the 
mere  I'de  b  d/jtubt;  too  deou  is  not  intelligible ;  we  must,  therefore, 
suppose  a  reference  to  something  preceding.  One  of  the  Dis- 
ciples, according  to  v.  41,  is  Andrew ;  the  one  whose  name  is 
not  given,  is  probably  the  Evangelist  himself,  since  in  other 
passages  it  is  usual  with  him  to  omit  his  own  name,  (xiii.  23, 
xviii.  15,  seq.  xix.  26,  xx.  2-4  and  8.)  This  feature  answers  most 
perfectly,  alike  with  the  other  historical  traits  preserved  of  John, 
and  with  his  literary  character,  in  which  a  certain  delicacy  and 
virgin  reserve  appear.  Characteristic,  also,  is  the  reverential 
timidity  with  which  these  two  Disciples  walk  in  silence  behind 
Jesus. 

V.  38-40.  Jesus  tenderly  draws  them  on  to  open  their  hearts 
to  him,  they  respond  with  the  question  as  to  where  he  dwelt — 
probably  as  to  his  abode  for  the  night  ?  (cf  fj.ii^siu,  Judges  xix.  9, 
Septuag.)  They  will  not  trouble  him  on  the  way,  they  wish  to 
speak  with  him  alone.  The  formula  employed  by  the  Saviour  in 
his  answer,  is  very  common  among  the  Rabbins,  especially  when 
attention  is  to  be  aroused  to  something ;  John,  too,  has  it  again 
in  V.  47.  Christ  then  invites  them  forthwith  to  accompany  him. 
They  go,  and  feel  interested  to  such  a  degree,  that  they  remain 
to  the  close  of  the  day.  According  to  the  Jewish  computation, 
which  reckoned  to  the  day  twelve  hours,  which  were  longer  oi 
shorter  according  as  the  day  broke  earlier  or  later,  the  tenth  hour 
would  be  about  four  o'clock  in  the  afternoon.  The  zr^u  ^j/iioai, 
ixecpTjV  would  then  be  limited  to  about  two  hours.     In  this 


FrusT  DiscirLt:s  or  Jesus.  91 

passage,  however,  as  also  (iv.  6,)  xix.  14,  it  answers  better  to  take 
the  Iloman  computation  of  the  hours.  According  to  the  in- 
vestigations of  Hug,  (Bemerk,  zur  Leidensgesch. — Observations 
on  the  History  of  the  Passion,  in  the  Freiburger  Zeitschr.  II. 
5,  p.  91,  cf  Kcttig,  in  the  Stud.  u.  Krit.  1830,  II.  1,)  the 
Romans,  in  the  time  of  the  Republic,  divided  the  hours  from 
midnight  to  midnight,  yet  in  the  time  of  Horace,  in  common 
life,  they  reckoned  the  hours  from  daybreak,  without  dropping 
the  other  computation,  however.  That  both  modes  of  compu- 
tation were  usual  among  the  Jews,  we  know  from  Josephus, 
who  in  his  de  bell.  jud.  6.  ix.  3,  employs  the  Jewish,  and  in 
Vita.  c.  54,  the  Roman  division.  The  present  iiivu  in  v.  40,  as 
in  iv.  1,  V.  13,  vi.  24,  is  explained  by  the  rule,  that  the 
Greeks,  when  i\\Qj  narrate  that  a  person  has  heard  or  said 
something,  place  themselves  in  the  point  of  time  at  which  it 
happened.     Winer,  4th  ed.  p.  244. 

V.  41-43.  Between  the  readings  zpcozo^  and  Trpcozov  the 
evidence  fluctuates.  If  we  read  -pcoTo;;,  the  sense  is :  both 
Andrew  and  John  went  to  seek  Simon,  and  to  make  the  com- 
munication to  him,  and  his  brother  found  him  first,  cf.  "/vwroc, 
John  XX.  4.  "Joio^,  in  the  later  Greek  usage,  like  proprius  a1 
times  in  the  later  Latin ity,  does  not  differ  from  the  possessive 
pronoun.  Peter  here  appears  as  one  of  those  who  belonged  to 
the  circle  described  in  Luke  ii.  38,  of  those  who  looked  for  the 
redemption  of  Israel ;  he  had  probably,  also,  been  one  of  the 
Baptist's  disciples.  The  Hebrew  name  diessiah  occurs,  iv.  25, 
also.  In  this  beautiful  scene,  we  behold  the  commencement 
of  all  Christian  activity  in  missions.  The  Saviour,  with  that 
piercing  glance  which  tested  men,  and  to  which  the  Evangelist 
so  often  gives  prominence,  (v.  48,  ii.  25,  iii.  3,  vi.  71,  cf.  Luke 
V.  22,)  looked  through  the  Disciple  brought  to  him.  It  is  a 
custom  of  the  Arabians  and  Hebrews  to  derive  significant  sur- 
names from  peculiar  events  in  life,  or  from  personal  character- 
istics; the  Rabbins,  also,  have  attached  to  them  certain  .stand- 
ing surnames,  (Bashuisen,  Clav.  tulnnul.  p.  52.)  Christ  now 
selects  for  Peter  one  of  this  kind,  he  names  him  Itock,  in  Aram. 
K3'3.  But  it  is  a  question  whether  this  appellation,  like  that 
given  to  the  sons  of  Zebedee,  Mark  iii.  17,  can  be  given  to  the 
character  of  Peter?     Would  it  not  rather  presuppose  a  firin 


92  Chap.  L— v.  43-52. 

character  like  that  of  Paul  ?  In  fact,  the  subsequent  conduct  of 
Peter  is  in  such  contrast  with  this  appellation,  that  the  penetration 
of  Christ  can  only  be  vindicated,  by  referring  it  less  to  the  char- 
acter of  the  Disciple,  than  to  that  winch  he  became  historically 
for  the  Churchy  and  this  is  also  the  prominent  reference  in  Matt, 
xvi.  18.  ^0  ulb::''Icovd,  the  full  name,  serves  only  to  give  so- 
lemnity to  the  language,  (Matt.  xvi.  17,  John  xxi.  15.) 

V.  43,  44.  If  /j&sXr^atu  is  designed  to  express  no  more  than 
the  mere  design  of  leaving  the  country  about  Jordan,  we  can 
see  no  reason  why  prominence  is  given  to  this.  We  are  led, 
therefore,  to  suppose  that  Philip,  after  the  journey  had  com- 
menced, was  found  by  the  way,  on  the  road,  where  also  was 
the  fig-tree  under  which  Nathaniel  was  sitting,  (Matt.  xxi.  19.) 
The  remark,  v.  45,  seems  to  point  to  the  fact,  that  the  two 
brothers  had  brought  about  the  acquaintance  of  Jesus  with 
Philip.  This  confirms  the  presupposition  which  would  natu- 
rally exist,  that  more  words  had  been  exchanged  between  Jesus 
and  Philip  than  are  here  given.  An  earlier  acquaintance  with 
Matthew,  must  also  (Luke  xi.  13,)  have  preceded  the  "Follow 
me,"  (Matt.  ix.  9.) 

V,  45,  46.  It  is  not,  indeed,  absolutely  necessary  that  this 
scene  with  JSTathaniel  should  have  taken  place  immediately,  yet 
it  is  most  natural  to  suppose  that  Philip,  who  had  now  attached 
himself  to  the  little  society,  found  his  friend  on  the  way.  l!Ta- 
thaniel  seems  also  to  have  been  one  who  had  previously  hoped 
for  the  Messiah ;  in  heart-stirring  words  Philip  utters  the  joy 
of  longing  fulfilled.  For  ov,  cf.  i.  15.  Since  Nathaniel  himself 
was  a  native  of  Cana,  (xxi.  2,)  it  may  be  asked  whether  he  here  ex- 
presses himself  from  a  sense  of  the  contempt  with  which  Galilee 
was  regarded,  (vii.  52,)  or  whether  it  was  the  village  of  Nazareth 
merel}^  which,  on  account  of  its  smallness,  (cf.  Ilengsten- 
berg,  Christol.  ii.  1,  p.  1,  seq.)  appeared  to  him  so  contempti- 
ble. In  either  view,  it  is  characteristic  of  the  whole  Christian 
interest,  that  Christ  arose  from  a  small,  despised  town,  of  a 
despised  province,  of  a  despised  people,  and  we  may  apply  here 
what  Paul  says,  1  Cor.  i.  27.  Philip  appeals  to  the  test  of  ex- 
perience. 

Y.  47-50.  Nathaniel  had  been  resting  under  the  fig-tree, 
and  now  comes   to  meet  Jesus,  who  also  here  exhibits  that 


First  Disciples  of  Jesus.  93 

power  of  looking  into  the  soul,  which  our  Evangelist  is  wont 
to  present  as  marking  him.  That  ' laparpdzr^^  is  an  honorary 
title,  cannot  be  satisfactorily  proven,  arid  'Iouda7o(:  might  have 
been  used  with  the  same  force,  (Rom.  ii.  20.)  Christ  recognizes 
in  the  man  an  ideal  of  his  people,  a  mind  to  which  all  hypoc- 
risy is  foreign.  It  is  not  what  Christ  acknowledges  him  to  be, 
that  surprises  the  young  man,  it  is  that  he  shows  himself  able 
to  read  his  heart.  In  the  words  that  follow,  upto. — (tdxyjU  are  to 
be  connected  with  sldov,  and  not  with  the  (fcouYjaac,  as  v.  51 
shows.  Under  the  shade  of  the  fig-tree,  the  Jew  was  wont  to 
repose,  as  beneath  a  leafy  roof,  occupying  himself  with  reading 
of  the  law,  ("Winer,  Kealw.  at  the  word  Feigenbaum.)  It  can- 
not be  meant  that  Jesus  supernaturally,  by  a  far  glance,  had 
known  the  outward  occupation  of  the  man,  for  how  could  he 
have  drawn  from  this  merely,  a  safe  conclusion  as  to  what  was 
passing  in  his  mind  ?  Nor  is  the  impression  made,  that  Philip 
went  far  from  the  way  to  seek  Nathaniel.  The  miraculous 
feature  which  surprised  Nathaniel  so  much,  is  consequently  to 
be  found  in  the  fact  that  his  state  of  mind  was  known  by  Jesus. 
As  nothing  impresses  a  man  more  profoundly,  than  to  find  that 
even  the  tenderest  and  most  sacred  emotions  of  his  heart  are 
penetrated,  this  simple-hearted  man  breaks  forth  in  an  ac- 
knowledgment of  allegiance  to  Jesus,  (1  Cor.  xiv.  25.)  It  cor- 
responds with  the  internal  emotion  which  might  be  anticipated 
in  him,  that  over  an  official  title  he  gives  precedence  to  a  des- 
ignation which  expresses  the  inner  character  of  the  Messiah. 
If  Olshausen's  "doubtless"  be  too  strong,  we  may  nevertheless 
regard  it  as  highly  probable,  that  Nathaniel,  in  his  heart,  per- 
haps, had  just  been  praying  for  the  coming  of  the  redemption 
of  Israel,  and  these  very  prayers  mark  the  t)-ue  Israelite. 

V.  51-52.  The  introduction  of  v.  52  with  the  special  xal 
Xeyst  auzuj,  is  designed  to  throw  into  yet  greater  prominence 
what  is  said  in  that  verse,  which  is  connected  with  v.  51,  cf.  on 
V.  32.  As  the  Redeemer,  in  the  history  of  Nicodemus,  leads 
on  to  a  higher  and  more  spiritual  degree,  the  faith  which  had 
been  excite^l  by  miracles,  so  he  does  here.  We  find  here,  for 
the  first  time,  the  name  "/S'on  of  man,"  which,  with  the  exception 
of  Acts  vii.  56,  occurs  only  in  the  Gospels.  That  this  appella- 
tion is   derived  from  Daniel  vii.  13,  is  put  beyond  question, 


94  Chap.  L— v.  51-52. 

especially  by  Luke  xxi.  27,  Rev.  i.  13 ;  on  the  other  hand,  it  is 
certain  that  among  the  Jews  the  Messiah  was  not  designated  by 
this  name,  (John  xii.  34.)^  Why,  then,  would  Jesus,  if  he  meant 
to  designate  himself  as  Messiah  by  it,  select  so  unusual  an  ap- 
pellation ?  The  opinion  that  it  is  simply  equivalent  to  Messiah, 
(thus  Chemnitz,  Beza,  Scholten,  Liicke,  Strauss,)  must,  there- 
fore, be  abandoned,  as  Matt.  xvi.  13  also  shows.  "We  have 
then  to  choose,  either  with  Be  Wette,  to  hold  that  he  designs 
to  mark  his  humiliation  in  humanity,  or  with  Harduin,  Mosche, 
Schleiermacher,  Olshausen,  Keander,  that  he  so  calls  himself  as 
the  one  who  expresses  the  idea  of  humanity,  in  whom  it  becomes 
glorified,  (Matt.  ix.  8.)  We  confess  that  the  remarks  with  which 
De  Wette,  on  Matt.  viii.  20,  has  met  our  earlier  view,  have 
caused  us  to  waver  in  it,  and  have  inclined  us  to  prefer  what  is 
properly  the  most  ancient  opinion,  which  is,  that  prominence  is 
given  by  the  predicate  to  the  point  of  the  manifestation  in 
humanity,  in  antithesis,  consequently  to  the  higher  nature,  (Jus- 
tin Martyr,  Dial.  c.  Tryph.  ed.  Thirlb.  p.  355 ;  Irenseus,  c.  beer. 
1.  3,  c.  19 ;  Tertullian,  de  Carne  Christi,  c.  5.)  If  we  explain 
the  predicate  "the  mortal,  the  incarnate,"  the  appellation  is,  in 
fact,  more  closely  connected  with  the  Old  Testament.  Ezekiel 
gives  himself  this  name  in  contrast  with  God,  and  in  Daniel, 
too,  this  meaning  is  the  basis  of  the  appellation ;  it  is  also  thus 
taken  in  Heb.  ii.  6.  The  antithesis  which  then  exists  between 
"Son  of  God"  and  "Son  of  man,"  is  more  after  the  analogy 
of  Holy  Scripture  than  the  other  view,  according  to  which  the 
true  humanity  and  the  Deity  are  opposed  to  each  other,  as  two 
diverse  aspects  of  the  same  thing ;  and  it  offers,  too,  a  far  more 
satisfactory  solution  of  the  abandonment  of  the  expression  by 
the  Apostles  after  the  exaltation  of  Christ.^  De  Wette  does 
not,  indeed,  seem  to  have  reflected  that  by  his  admission,  that 
Jesus,  even  in  the  synoptical  Gospels,  continually  designates 
himself  as  a  higher  being,  who  has  appeared  in  humanity, 
John's   delineation  of  Jesus,  against   which  the  rationalistic 

i("I  cannot,  with  Tholuck,  draw  from  John  xii.  34,  the  inference  that  the  Jews 
were  unacquainted  with  the  term  by  which  Daniel  designates  the  Messiah." — Do 
Wette,  3d  ed.  On  Matt.  yiii.  20.    Tr.) 

2  Neander,  indeed,  Leben  Jesu,  p.  144,  seq.  has  applied  in  an  interesting  way. 
his  idea  on  the  different  passages,  but  especially  in  John  iii.  13,  does  the  second 
view  decidedly  commend  itself  more. 


First  Disciples  of  Jesus.  95 

view  is  directed,  is  confirmed.  The  opened  heaven  here,  as  at 
the  baptism  of  Jesus,  can  only  designate  the  rich  inipartation 
of  divine  power,  and  the  efficient  succor  from  on  high;  the 
angels,  of  whose  appearing  we  first  read  in  the  history  of  the 
Passion,  can  be  regarded  onl}^  as  a  symbol  of  the  mediating 
divine  powers — as,  indeed,  in  the  Old  Testament,  ^N^f?  designa- 
ted originally,  not  a  personal  being,  but  "divine  mission,"  (Ps. 
xxxiv.  8,  Sack,  Comment.  Theol.  p.  19.  See  Colin.  Bibl.  Theol. 
I.  p.  191.)  In  all  probability,  Jesus  had  before  his  eyes  the  image 
of  the  ladder  reaching  to  heaven,  on  which  the  angels  of  God 
ascended  and  descended,  Gen.  xxviii.  12,  and  in  that  place,  also, 
it  designates  the  agenc}^  of  the  powers  of  God  in  the  welfare 
of  the  patriarch.  It  is  remarkable  that  the  xava^aivztv,  like 
rh]?  in  Genesis,  is  placed  first,  for  the  intercourse  between 
heaven  and  earth  is  represented,  not  as  something  which  is  to 
begin,  but  as  already  begun,  and  therefore  an  uninterrupted 
one,  (De  Wette.)  The  meaning,  then,  of  this  sublime  passage 
is,  that  jSTathauiel  should  come  to  recognize  in  that  Messiah 
who  had  appeared  as  a  feeble  mortal,  the  unbroken  revelation 
of  heavenly  powers.  Luther:  "We  must,  therefore,  explain 
this  history  in  a  spiritual  way.  "When  Christ  became  man, 
and  had  entered  on  the  office  of  preacher,  heaven  was  opened, 
and  it  remains  open,  and  since  that  time  never  has  been  closed, 
nor  shall  it  ever  be  closed,  though  with  our  bodily  eyes  we 
behold  it  not.  Christ  bends  over  us,  but  invisibly.  Christ  means 
to  say :  Ye  are  now  citizens  of  heaven,  ye  have  now  your  citi- 
zenship above  in  the  heavenly  Jerusalem,  ye  are  in  communion 
■with  the  blessed  angels,  who,  without  intermission,  ascend  and 
descend  for  you.  Heaven  and  earth  have  now  become  one, 
and  it  is  as  if  ye  sat  on  high,  and  the  blessed  angels  served 
you."  Calvin,  also:  ^'^ 3Iultum  autem  errant  meo  judieio,  qui 
anxie  qucerunt  temjnis  et  locum,  uhi  et  quando  Nath.  et  reliqui 
ccelum  apertum  viderint.  Potius  enim  quiddam  continuum 
designate  quod  semper  extare  dehehat  in  ejus  regno.  Fateor 
quidem  aliquoties  discipulis  visos  fuisse  angelos,  qui  hodie  non 
apjmrent. — Sed  si  p)rohe  rejmtemus,  quod  tunc  factum  est,  perpetuo 
viget.  Nam  quum  2^^ius  clausum  esset  regnum  Dei,  vere  in 
Christo  apertum  fuit."  "In  my  opinion  they  make  a  great  mis- 
take, who  are  solicitous  as  to  the  time  and  place,  the  when  and 


96  Chap.  L— v.  51-52. 

where,  Nathaniel  and  the  others  beheld  heaven  opened.  For 
he  rather  designates  something  which  was  to  continue,  some- 
thing meant  to  be  permanent  in  his  kingdom.  I  admit  that  to 
the  Disciples  angels  sometimes  appeared,  who  no  longer  ap- 
pear.— But  if  we  look  at  it  aright,  what  was  then  done,  con- 
tinues forever.  For  the  kingdom  of  God,  which  was  before 
closed,  was  in  Christ  truly  opened."  It  might  already  be  in- 
ferred from  this  promise  of  Christ  to  I^J^athaniel,  that  at  a  later 
period  he  would  be  received  into  the  number  of  Apostles,  as  in 
ch.  xxi.  2,  he  is  actually  found  among  them,  and  from  the 
connection  of  ch.  i.  and  ii.  we  must  suppose  him  to  be  em- 
braced among  the  fxa&r^rai  of  ch.  ii.  2.  As  his  name  does  not 
occur  in  the  enumeration  of  the  Apostles,  Matt.  x.  and  Luke  vi. 
but  a  Bartholomew  is  coupled  with  Philip,  the  inference  is 
correctly  drawn,  that  under  that  name,  equivalent  to  son  of 
Ptolemeeus,  we  have  a  surname  of  iN^athaniel. 

In  what  relation  does  this  calling  of  the  Disciples  stand  to 
that  detailed  in  Matt.  iv.  18,  seq.  Mark  i.  16,  seq.  Luke  v.  1, 
seq.  according  to  which  the  two  pairs  of  brothers,  Peter  and 
Andrew,  James  and  John,  were  called  from  their  occupation  as 
fishermen,  to  Jesus,  and  received,  as  we  mast  believe,  especially 
from  Luke  v.  11,  permanently  into  association  with  Jesus? 
The  usual  answer,  that  here,  only  the  first  meeting,  while  in  the 
synoptical  Gospels,  the  entrance  into  an  enduring  connection, 
may  be  narrated,  has  been  met  by  Strauss  with  the  objection 
that  in  John,  from  the  time  of  this  first  gathering,  and  in  the 
synoptical  Gospels,  from  the  time  of  the  calling  they  mention, 
the  Disciples  just  named  constantly  appear  as  attendants  of  the 
Saviour,  and  besides  this,  the  difficulty  that  if  we  suppose  subse- 
quently to  the  miracle  at  Cana  a  new  and  temporary  dispersion 
of  the  Disciples,  the  overwhelming  effect  produced  by  the 
miraculous  draught  of  fishes  on  those  who  had  witnessed  the 
turning  of  water  to  wine,  would  be  wholly  unaccountable.^ 
Neander  meets  the  difficulty  by  the  supposition,  that  between 
the  calling  of  Nathaniel  and  that  of  Philip,  and  consequently 
between  v.  44  and  45,  a  longer  space  of  time  is  to  be  put,  during 
wliich  the  Disciples  had  again  dispersed,  and  during  which  the 

1  Bauer,  1.  c.  p.  58,  seq.  is  specially  vigorous  in  pointing  out  contradiction  and 
*l)burdity  in  the  evangelical  narrator  at  this  point. 


First  Disciples  of  Jesus,  97 

miraculous  draught  of  fishes  occurred.  Tfj  '^fispa  rrj  Tphfj,  ii,  1, 
must  then  be  dated  from  the  calling  of  Nathaniel.  The  follow- 
ing conciliation  seems  to  us  more  plausible.  From  Perea,  whither 
the  Disciples  had  been  drawn  only  by  the  call  given  through 
the  preaching  of  the  Baptist,  since  they  now  had  given  up  this 
association,  they  must  return  again  to  Galilee  ;  this  they  did  in 
company  with  the  Master  whom  they  had  recently  found.  The 
way  to  Capernaum  and  Bethsaida  lies  through  Cana,  there  they 
stop  with  Jesus ;  having  reached  home,  they  again  pursue  their 
occupations.  Jesus,  however,  before  he  takes  his  journey  to 
the  Passover,  calls  them  to  be  his  constant  followers.  Luther 
already  has  the  remark :  "  The  Evangelist  is  not  speaking  of  the 
calling  of  the  Apostles,  but  that  they  alone  went  about  with 
him  as  companions."  This  holds  good  until  the  first  journey 
to  the  Passover. 


10 


CHAPTER   II 


The  First  Miracle  in  Galilee. — v.  1-12.  Purification  of 
THE  Temple. — v.  12-22.  Faith  of  many  of  the  citizens 
OF  Jerusalem. — v.  23-25. 

V.  1,  2.  So  vividly  does  tlie  Evangelist  move  amid  the 
events  of  the  time  in  which  his  first  calling  occurs,  that  he 
also  mentions  in  this  place  the  date :  three  days  after  the  com- 
mencement of  the  journey  to  Galilee.  The  mother  of  Jesus 
had  already  come  from  Capernaum  to  Cana  to  the  Avedding 
feast ;  Jesus,  who  went  by  the  road  from  Jordan  through  Cana, 
(on  his  journey  from  Jerusalem  to  Galilee  also,  he  first  comes 
to  Cana,  iv.  45,)  was,  together  with  his  new  Disciples,  invited  to 
the  feast  by  the  family  of  friends.  In  two  days  he  could  readily 
pass  over  the  road  from  Bethany  on  Jordan  to  Cana,  which 
makes  the  reference  to  i.  44,  of  the  statement  of  time,  the  more 
easy. 

V.  3-5.  It  was,  indeed,  usual  to  keep  up  wedding  festivals 
for  several  days,  (Gen.  xxix.  27,  Judges  xiv.  14,)^  but  verse  10 
shows  that  the  want  occurred  toward  the  end  of  the  supper,  so 
that  the  celebration  could  not  have  been  prolonged,  as  some 
suppose,  beyond  one  day.  The  mother  of  Jesus  applies  to  him 
— perhaps  only  in  order  to  obtain  from  him  assistance  of  some 
sort  in  the  emergency,  [Liicke  :  something  extraordinary,]  if 
not  exactly  a  miraculous  one  ?  Or,  shall  we  say,  that  Mary,  in 
order  to  spare  their  hosts  the  mortification,  only  designed  to 
ask  Jesus  to  give  to  the  guests  a  sign  to  break  up,  (thus  Bengel, 
Ilofiman.)^    But  the  answer  of  Christ,  in  which  he  puts  her  off, 

[}  See  Winer's  Kealw.     7th  ed.] 

[2  Calvin :  That  he  should  eay  something  to  hush  the  guests.     7th  ed.] 
(98) 


The  First  Miracle  in  Galilee.  99 

can  hardly  be  explained  except  on  the  supposition  that  his  mother 
urged  him  to  a  miraculous  assistance.    But  how  was  his  mother 
led  to  do  this  ?     Had  Jesus  previously  performed  in  the  domestic 
circle'  much  that  was  wonderful,  or  was  the  power  of  miracles 
first  aroused  when  he  had  entered  on  the  exercise  of  his  Mes- 
sianic vocation  ?     We  do  not  feel  disposed  to   take   ground 
against  those   who,  like  Ilase,  (Leben  Jesu,  3d  ed.  p.  91,  cf. 
Liickc,)  embrace  the  first  of  these  views.     Yet  Mary's  desire 
does  not  necessarily  decide  for  this  view.     For  the  exhibition 
of  extraordinary  power  on  the  part  of  her  divine  son,  she  was 
beyond  doubt  prepared.     She  expected  them  with  his  entrance 
on  his  public  career.'*    He  had  just  returned  from  his  solemn 
baptism  at  the  Jordan,  for  the  first  time  with  Disciples  attending 
him.     His  philanthropic  disposition  was  known  to  her ;  might 
she  not  expect  some  proof  of  that  disposition  under  these  cir- 
cumstances, when  on  it  was  depending  the  happiness  of  a  pious, 
poor  family,  and  the  sparing  them  the  mortification  on  their 
festal  wedding  day?     Yet  to   Jesus  the   occasion   may   have 
seemed  less  fitting,  and  in  this  way  the  answer  in  which  he  puts 
off  the  request  may  be  explained.     Or  shall  we  say  that  he  de- 
sired to  appear  first  in  Jerusalem  in   his   miraculous   endow- 
ments, (see  on  iv.  45.)    The  time  determined  on  by  himself  had, 
at  all  events,  not  come,  as  the  ootho  vjxei  y;  wpa  fxou  shows.     This 
expression  designates,  in  general,  the  entrance  of  a   decisive 
point,  (John  xvi.  21,  iv.  23  ;)  John  uses  it,  elsewhere,  with  refer- 
ence to  that  point  in  the  life  of  Jesus  most  decisive  of  all,  the 
hour  of  his  death  and  his  glorification,  (vii.  30,  xii.  23,  27,  xiii.  1;) 
in  Matt,  also,  xxvi.  18,   Christ  says  6  xacpo^  fxoo  iyyO^  iaziv. 
Here  is  the  decisive  point  of  the  public  appearance  as  Messiah. 
The  pres.  rf/to  has  in  Greek  usage  the  meaning  of  the  preterit,  as 
also  in  viii.  42.     The  phrase  re  iftoc  xac  aoi  is  a  literal  translation 
of  the  Hebrew  ■^^)  '^"no  (Jos.  xxii.  24,  Judges  xi.  12,  2  Sam.  xvi. 
10,  1  Kings  xvii.  18,  2  Kings  iii.  13,  Matt.  viii.  29,  xxvii.  19, 
Mark  i.  24.)     It  is  also  found  in  the  classics,'  (Bernliardy,  Synt. 
p.  98.)     The  radical  idea  appears  to  be:  "What  have  we  in 
common  ?     Our  relations  are  wholly  different."     The  formula 

\}  So  Ilunnius  and  Le  Clcrc.     7th  ed.] 

[■^  Chrysostom  :  She  wished  to  glorify  herself  through  her  son.     7th  ed.] 

['  Arrian,  dissert  T.  iii,  in  the  index,  p.  458.     7th  ed.] 


100  Chap.  JI.—y.  6-11. 

there  is  used  to  express  unwilliugness  to  be  disturbed  or  hin- 
dered by  any  one.  It  always  implies  reproof,  although  some- 
times a  friendly  one  merely,  (2  Sam.  xvi.  10,)  here:  "Mingle 
not  thyself  in  my  concerns;  we  pursue  different  aims  and  thou 
comprehendest  me  not."  K  Christ,  then,  did  not  consider  this 
as  a  suitable  occasion  for  the  performance  of  a  miracle,  why 
does  he,  nevertheless,  follow  his  mother's  suggestion  ?  Because 
it  could  not,  on  the  other  hand,  be  regarded  as  an  unsuitable 
one,  for  it  offered  him  an  occasion  for  proving  his  philanthropic 
disposition.  As  Messiah  he  uttered  the  reproof,  as  a  son  he 
complied  with  the  request.^  The  address  yupai  is  not  disrespect- 
ful, but  solemn,  cf.  the  address  from  the  cross,  xix.  26.  In 
Dion  Cassius  Hist.  li.  12,  Augustus  thus  addresses  Cleopatra: 
^'&dpaec,  w  yuvcu,  xac  d^ofibv  i^s  d]'a&6u,"  ("Take  courage,  O 
woman,  and  keep  a  good  heart,")  cf.  "Wetstein.  That  the  look 
of  Jesus  expressed  more  than  his  words  convey,  may  be  gath- 
ered from  the  address  of  his  mother  to  the  servants. 

V.  6-8.  By  the  purifying,  we  are  to  understand  the  usual 
washing  of  the  hands.  Matt.  xv.  2,  Mark  vii.  3.  The  Attic 
metetres  contained  21  Wiirtemberg  quarts,  (about  8^  gallons 
English.  Tr.)  so  that  the  entire  capacity  of  the  vessels,  supposing 
all  the  water  to  have  been  converted  into  wine,  would  give  13 
ahms  (Strasburg,)  of  wine,  (about  53  J  gallons  English.  Tr.)  The 
icDc:  duo)  serves  to  augment  the  miracle ;  by  it,  moreover,  the  pos- 
sibility of  deception  is  excluded.  Triclinium,  a  room  with  three 
xlivat-,  three  sets  of  cushions.  The  person  who  presided 
over  this,  and  arranged  the  feast,  was  called  by  the  Romans, 
tricliuarches,^  (see  the  Dissertation  by  J.  E.  Walch  on  the  Tri- 
clin arches,  Jena,  1753.)  He  is  not  to  be  confounded  with  the 
aoix7ioacd[)yrrj<i,  modimperator  among  the  Romans  and  Greeks, 
who  was  elected  from  the  guests,  to  preserve  order  during  the 
meal. 

v.  9,  10.  The  master  of  the  feast  supposed  that  the  wine 
had  been  provided  by  the  bridegroom,  and  half  sportively 
gives  him  an  admonition.     Msd-uaxo/iac,  like  the  Hebrew  "i3*^ 

p  According  to  Besser,  (compare  Bullinger,)  for  this  reason  especially,  that  in  her 
words  to  the  servants  he  perceives  the  evidence  of  her  faith.     7th  ed.] 

[2  The  architriklinos,  or  archon  of  the  triklinion,  bearing  among  the  Greeks  the 
name  trapezopoios  also,  is  defined  by  Athenseus  as  "  one  who  superintends  tiie 
tables,  and  preserves  order."    7th  ed.] 


The  First  Miracle  in  Galilee.  101 

means  not  merely  to  become  drunk,  but  also  to  drink  largely; 
as,  we  say,  "to  have  well  drunk,"  (Septuag.  Gen.  xliii.  34, 
Hagg.  i.  6,  Rev.  xvii.  2.) 

V.  11.  The  first  words,  with  which  iv.  54  is  to  be  compared, 
can  only  be  translated  as  Luther  has  done:  "this  miracle,  the 
first  which  Jesus  wrought,  he  performed  in  Cana  of  Galilee." 
During  the  brief  abode  in  Capernaum,  v.  12,  no  miracle  (iv. 
45,)  was  wrought ;  in  iv.  54,  therefore,  prominence  is  given  to 
the  fact  that  the  second  Galilean  miracle  was  wrought  in  this 
very  Cana  again.  The  impression  produced  on  the  guests  is 
not  mentioned,  but  only  the  aim  which  it  attained,  as  regarded 
the  Disciples.  Flcaztutcv  is  used  of  the  different  degrees  of  a 
weaker  or  stronger  faith,  (v.  22,  xi.  15,  xiii.  19,  xx.  8.)  In  re- 
gard to  oo^a,  see  on  i.  14. 

As  the  miracles  which  Christ  wrought  on  irrational  nature 
are  in  general  more  remarkable  than  the  miracles  of  healing, 
since  in  the  latter  a  psychologic  mediation  is  possible,  which  is 
entirely  wanting  in  the  former,  it  is  precisely  this  miracle  which 
is  designated  by  Strauss  as  the  very  acme  of  the  miraculous, 
since  it  involves  a  qualitative  transmutation  of  an  elementary 
substance,  a  transubstantiation  proper.  The  period  of  illumina- 
tion had  naturally  already  stumbled  at  this  miracle.^  Paulus' 
exposition  of  it  may  claim  a  notice  in  commentaries  even 
for  the  future,  at  least  as  a  characteristic  voucher  for  the 
tendency  of  the  mind  from  which  it  proceeded.  The  event 
reduces  itself  to  a  happy  wedding  jest,  as  Jesus,  by  means  of 
wine  privately  brought  with  him,  intended  to  give  the  company 
an  agreeable  surprise.  The  earnest  solemn  address  of  Jesus,  v. 
4,  is  therefore  "spoken  in  the  tone  of  one  who  jests,  and  who 
checks  his  mother  lest  her  precipitancy  should  spoil  the  joke 
he  has  in  view."  The  do^a  is  "the  frank  humanit}^  of  Jesus," 
in  which  they  were  "  won  to  confide,"  [imffTsoaav)  since  a  serious- 
ness which  would  lay  men  under  constraint  had  been  anti- 
cipated on  the  part  of  the  Messiah.^     The  exposition  of  the 

[1  Venturini,  LangsJorf,  Gfrorer,  explain  it  as  natural.     7th  ed.] 

[2  Strauss  finds  the  mythical  basis  in  Moses'  conversion  of  the  bitter  water 
into  sweet,  Exod.  xiv.  According  to  Br.  Bauer,  "mine  hour"  refers  to  the  time 
of  our  Saviour's  passion,  when  he  should  for  the  first  time  distribute  the  true 
miraculous  wine.  Baur,  in  accordance  with  the  pragmatic  character  of  ihis 
Gospel,  would  explain  this  miracle  as  a  symbol  that  the  time  had  come  for 
H  10* 


102  Chap.  H.— r.  6-11. 

miracles  from  the  "genuine  historical"  position  of  Gfrorer,  has 
not  been  able  to  go  much  beyond  this.  The  miracle  at  Cana, 
we  learn  from  this  writer,  is,  to  be  sure,  historical ;  only  we  must 
not  at  all  suppose  that  Jesus  had  bewitched  the  wine,  when  he 
might  easily  have  bought  it  for  a  few  pieces  of  money,  but  the 
mother  of  Jesus  had  brought  it  with  her  as  a  present  to  the  poor 
couple,  and  during  the  meal,  when  the  right  time  had  come,  gave 
her  son  the  sign  to  present  the  gift.^  So  long  as  the  genuine- 
ness of  the  Gospel  is  firmly  established,  the  aversion  to  miracles, 
has  in  the  case  of  miracles  like  this,  no  other  refuge  than  such  as 
have  been  mentioned.  Even  Strauss,  when  for  a  little  while  he 
assumes  the  air  of  one  about  to  concede  the  genuineness  of  the 
Gospel,  finds  relief  (in  his  essay :  "  The  transient  and  permanent 
in  Christianity,")  in  the  frivolous  remark:  "The  transmutation 
of  the  water — how  often  has  wine  been  drawn  in  the  most 
natural  manner  from  a  vessel  which  previously  contained 
water."  Schweizer  regards  this  narrative  as  one  of  the  inter- 
polated parts  of  the  Gospel.  His  hypothesis  of  interpolation, 
in  spite  of  the  acuteness  with  which  he  has'  labored  to  maintain 
it,  does  not,  as  a  general  thing,  sustain  itself.  If,  then,  the 
historical  character  of  the  miracle  is  firmly  established,  how  is 
it  as  regards  the  way  it  is  to  be  conceived  of?  The  ultimate 
cause  of  a  miracle  lies  in  God,  who,  as  the  absolute  power  over 
nature,  operates  through  the  doer  of  the  miracle.  As  the 
cause  of  nature's  conformity  to  law,  or  as  it  has  in  more  recent 
times  been  expressed,  as  the  absolute  and  universal  law  of 
nature,  God  must  also  have  power  over  the  particular  laws,  as 
of  gravitation,  organic  life,  &c.  that  is,  within  subsisting  nature. 
He  can  put  forth  a  particular  and  immediate  operation.  Such  is 
the  case,  when  after  the  entrance  of  death  into  the  organism, 
the  vital  function  begins  anew.  In  the  contest  with  the  most 
recent  rejecters  of  miracles,  the  question  is  reduced  to  this: 

Jesus,  tlie  true  Bridegroom,  to  make  the  transition  from  the  ■water — the  pre- 
paratory position  of  the  Baptist — to  the  wine  of  the  higher  Messianic  glory.  In 
the  oilier  writers  we  find  allusions  to  the  antitheses  between  the  Old  Testament 
and  New  Testament  positions,  thus  Erasmus,  Luther,  and  so,  also,  Luthardt,  con- 
formably to  the  sense  of  arffielov,  as  an  indication  of  something  higher ;  according 
to  Hofman,  (Schriftbew,  II.  2,  381,)  "a  predelineation  of  the  marriage  supper  in 
heaven,  Rev.  xix.  8."     7th  ed.] 

1  Kern,  also,  has  not  been  able  to  come  to  any  more  satisfactory  account  than 
this.     Tubing.  Zeitschrift.  1839,  2   H.  p.  26. 


The  First  Miracle  in  Galilee.  103 

Would  a  will  in  unison  witli  God  desire  in  this  way  to  operate 
on  the  laws  of  nature  ? — would  it  be  willing  to  do  it,  since 
these  very  things  are  the  general  will  of  God  for  nature? 
(Strauss,  Strcitsehriften,  3  H.  p.  116,  Glaubenslehrc,  1,  p.  245.) 
Against  this,  only  the  counter  question  need  be  urged :  How  is 
this  absolute  universality  established?  So  established,  that 
even  in  an  ethico-teleological  interest  no  exception  can  be 
allowed  ?  Yet  even  he  who  holds  that  an  immediate  creative 
activity  in  the  God-man  is  admissible,  will  ask  in  these  particu- 
lar cases,  whether  there  is  any  occasion  to  fall  back  upon  that, 
whether  an  activity  mediated  by  the  nature  given  be  not  suffi- 
cient, that  is,  whether  the  doer  of  the  miracle  has  not  been 
merely  the  agent  in  soliciting  an  extraordinary  process  condition- 
aryin  the  object.  Augustine  had  already  applied  in  this  sense 
to  the  miracle  before  us,  the  category  of  "an  accelerated  process 
of  nature."  The  change  of  substance  of  the  water,  which  year  by 
3'ear  is  taken  up  into  the  vine,  appears  here  only  in  an  accele- 
rated form ;  thus  Ilase,  Leben  Jesu,  §  58,  2d  ed.,  Olshausen.  The 
more  rational  and  insinuating  this  formula  sounded,  the  more 
energetically  did  Strauss  direct  his  ridicule  against  it,  and  it 
actually  seemed  as  though  its  glimmer  of  philosophy  had  been 
at  once  extinguished  by  the  dry  remark,  that  in  the  transmuta- 
tion of  water  in  Caua,  it  was  just  the  most  important  thing  of 
all  that  was  wanting,  to  wit :  the  vegetable  agent,  the  vine. 
Nevertheless,  this  objection  of  his  has  not  prevented  Ilase,  in 
the  3d  ed.  p.  92,  nor  Olshausen,  3d  ed.  from  persisting  in  what 
they  had  said,  without,  indeed,  making  any  reply  to  the  objec- 
tion of  the  critic.^  If  the  Apologists  by  their  analogy  intend  the 
identity  of  the  process,  they  are  certainly  wrong;  if,  on  the  other 
hand,  they  mean,  as  in  fact  the  expression  seems  to  imply,  only 
the  similarity,  if  they  mean  a  smaller  and  yet  similar  miracle, 
(this  plus  and  minus  need  not  seem  strange,  even  Strauss  has 
not  only  spoken  of  degrees  of  the  miraculous,  but  of  degrees  of 
the  impossible  itself,  U.  p.  155,  1st  ed.)  they  are  right.  Can,  then, 
Strauss  deny  the  transmutation  of  inorganic  matter  into  organic 

^  When  Olshausen  there  remarks,  that  Strauss  himself  had  since  in  his  Streit- 
echriften,  3,  p.  113,  acknowledged  the  formula  of  an  accelerated  process  of  nature, 
it  is  in  tim  conncctiou  calculated  to  mislead.  The  critic  makes  the  concession, 
indeed,  p  llo,  that  in  miracles  of  healing  especially,  this  category  is  applicable,  but 
not  in  transmutation  of  substtinces. 


104  Chap,  n.— v.  6-16. 

by  the  organic  process  ?  Must  we  not,  in  the  assimilation  of 
nutriment,  speak  of  transmutation — in  the  case  of  the  plant, 
of  the  transmutation  of  the  elementary  matter  of  water  (more 
strictly  of  carbonic  acid  and  nitrogen,)  in  the  plant?  The 
critic,  indeed,  speaks  as  though  the  elementary  matter  did 
nothing  more  than  excite  an  activity  in  the  plant,  but  in  this 
he  will  find  nobody  to  agree  with  him.  In  his  fencing,  his 
hardest  coup  is,  that  the  accelerated  process  of  nature  will  not 
answer,  because  not  must  but  wine  was  made,  that  there  must 
be  an  accelerated  artificial  process  of  the  wine-press  also,  &c. — 
as  though  a  process  of  nature  could  not  produce  results  like  or 
identical  with  those  of  art.^  In  general,  nothing  compels  us 
in  the  case  before  us  to  assume  a  transmutation  of  substance. 
The  miracle  becomes  intelligible  on  the  supposition  of  such  a 
change  in  the  chemical  qualities  of  the  water  as  would  impart 
to  it  the  color  and  taste  of  wine ;  so  Neander,  who  refers  to 
instances  mentioned  by  Athenseus  and  Theopompus,  of  springs 
of  water  which  had  the  intoxicating  property  of  wine,  to  which 
may  be  added  the  example  in  Yitruvius,  viii.  3,  which  Lampe 
quotes  from  Casaubon. 

But  not  merely  the  possihility,  but  the  conformity  to  any  good 
purpose,  and  the  proi^riety  of  this  miracle  particularly,  have  been 
called  into  question.  While  the  miracles  of  Christ  on  other 
occasions  were  worthy  of  honor  as  the  emanation  of  his  mercy, 
this  which  was  an  abetting  of  the  luxury  of  a  banquet,  seems 
almost  immoral.  But  we  have  already  intimated,  that  we 
must  suppose  that  a  family  with  which  the  mother  of  Jesus 
was  on  intimate  terms,  was  a  poor  and  pious  one,  and  for  their 
poverty  there  is  a  palpable  evidence  in  the  want  of  wine  on  an 
occasion  when  in  Palestine  such  a  deficiency  could  scarcely  oc- 
cur, except  with  very  poor  persons.  "This  is  now  the  second 
honor,  (the  first  was  his  presence,)"  says  Luther,  "  that  he  pre- 
sented to  the  poor  couple  at  their  wedding  good  wine — he  had, 
perchance,  no  gold  nor  jewel  to  give  them."  Maldonatus: 
"  Voluit  Christus  non  solum  prcesenti  inopice  subvenire,  sed  multum 
etiam  vini  sponso  remanere,  turn  ut  illius  p>aupertatem  sublevaret, 

[1  P.  Lange,  (Leben  Jesu,  II.  1,  p.  307,)  says  that  the  elevated  frame  of  mind  on 
the  part  of  the  Master  of  the  feast  and  of  the  guests,  caused  them  to  taste  the 
water  as  wine.] 


The  Purification  of  the  Temple.  105 

turn  ut  diuturman  testimonium  ac  monimentum  esset  facti  mirac- 
nli."  "Christ  desired  not  only  to  relieve  a  present  necessity, 
but  that  a  quantity  of  wine  might  remain  for  him  who  had  just 
married,  alike  that  He  might  assist  him  in  his  poverty,  and  leave 
a  lasting  witness  and  memorial  of  the  miracle  that  had  been 
wrought."  In  foct,  under  the  circumstances  stated,  the  vast 
quantity  of  wine  is  accounted  for  in  a  very  satisfactory  man- 
ner. Thus,  then,  this  miracle  is  an  expression  of  love  on  the 
part  of  Christ,  and  to  his  Disciples,  as  we  read,  a  stimulus  of 
faith. 

The  Purification  of  the  Temple. — v.  12-22. 

V.  12.  From  the  southern  and  higher  side  of  the  region 
which  lay  around  the  sea  of  Galilee,  Jesus  repaired  to  Caper- 
naum, which  lay  on  the  north,  consequently  xari^rj.  As  his 
mother  and  brethren  accompanied  him  thither,  and  as  Caper- 
naum is  called,  Matt.  ix.  1,  his  oivn  city,  we  may  conclude  that 
the  family  had  gone  to  settle  there,^  or  at  least,  that  Jesus  was 
in  the  habit  of  sojourning  there  for  considerable  periods  of 
time  ;  yet  at  this  time  he  remained  but  a  little  while,  and,  as 
it  appears,  without  any  display  of  miracles,  (see  iv.  44,  45.) 
He  purposes  to  make  Jerusalem  the  first  theatre  of  his  activity 
as  Messiah.  As  the  Disciples  accompanied  him  on  the  journey 
to  the  Passover  which  he  was  now  about  to  make,  we  are  to 
suppose  that  in  the  interval  he  had  united  them  with  him  in  a 
permanent  manner. 

V.  13-16.  Having  arrived  in  Jerusalem,  Jesus  at  once  ap- 
pears in  that  holy  place,  which  he  had  once,  as  a  boy,  declared 
to  be  the  house  of  Ms  father,  and  performs  the  act  of  a  prophet 
and  judge  in  it,  by  which  he,  as  it  were,  takes  possession  of  it, 
(Calvin.)  In  addition  to  the  three  courts  of  the  temple, 
there  was  yet  a  large  space  outside,  which  embraced  a  place 
which  was  paved,  open  at  the  top,  and  surrounded  by  a  great 
colonnade ;  this  was  the  Court  of  the  Gentiles ;  and  this  we 
must  regard  as  meant  here  by  the  general  appellation,  Upov. 
Lattice-work,  to  which  there  was  a  flight  of  four  steps,  separa- 
ted this  place  from  the  inner  temple,  and  on  the  entrance  of 

[1  Wicseler,  Chronol.  Synopse.  p.  169.  Luther :  There  in  Caperuuum,  Chi-ist 
Lad  beeu  Pastor,  and  had  labored  iu  the  word  of  God.     7  th  ed.] 


106  Chap.  K— v.  17-19. 

this  lattice,  was  an  inscription  which  forbade  any  dXXdipoAo^ 
(foreigner,)  to  advance  further.  The  traffic  may  originally 
have  been  pursued  without  the  precincts  of  the  temple,  and  only 
by  degrees  have  insinuated  itself  into  it.  It  certainly  promoted 
the  object  for  which  the  temple  was  resorted  to,  and  found  an 
excuse  in  this  fact.  The  occasion  may  have  been  given  by 
persons  from  other  lands,  who  came  to  the  feasts,  who  would 
desire  to  purchase  sheep  and  oxen  for  sacrifice,  and  in  doing 
so,  find  it  necessary  to  exchange  their  foreign  money,  and 
would  also  embrace  this  opportunity  of  discharging  the  temple 
tribute,  (Exod.  xxx.  13,  seq.)  which  could  not  be  paid  in  foreign 
money.  The  rebuke  of  Christ,  as  we  read  in  this  Gospel,  was 
directed  to  the  business  to  which  the  temple  was  now  exclu- 
sively devoted ;  the  stronger  expression.  Matt.  xxi.  13,  points  at 
the  same  time,  to  sinful  practices  in  the  commercial  transac- 
tions. The  scourge  which  he  lifted  served,  without  being 
used,  to  direct  greater  attention,  on  the  part  of  the  rude  mass, 
to  his  words.  That  Christ  should  have  used  it,  is  opposed  to 
our  conceptions  of  his  dignity ;  but  independently  of  this,  we 
would  be  the  less  inclined  to  such  a  view,  as  confessedly  (even 
by  Strauss,  3d  ed.  retracted,  4th  ed.)  such  means  would  not  have 
sufficed  for  the  end  in  view ;  this,  the  overpowering  personal  ma- 
jesty of  Christ  alone  could  effect,  which  created  the  impression 
that  here  one  had  appeared  with  divine  authority;  cf.  what  is 
said  of  the  impression  produced  by  the  appearance  of  Jesus,  ch. 
vii.  46,  and  xviii.  6.  An  interference  in  God's  name  in  the 
reform  and  regeneration  of  civil  and  religious  institutions,  was, 
indeed,  allowed  to  the  position  of  the  Old  Testament  prophets. 
Nor  must  we  confine  our  view  exclusively  to  the  special  prac- 
tical aim  of  this  temporary  purification  of  the  temple ;  the 
Saviour  certainly  contemplated  in  this  single  transaction  the 
symbol  of  his  entire  work — purifying  the  house  of  God.  If  the 
sellers  of  doves  are  treated  with  more  mildness  than  the  others, 
the  reason,  perhaps,  is  to  be  found  in  the  nature  of  that  bird,  or 
probably  in  the  fact  that  doves  were  offered  by  the  poor. 

V.  17.  This  same  formula  eiiv/ja&rjaav  is  found  also  in  v.  22 
and  chap.  xii.  16,  but  with  the  addition,  "after  the  resurrection 
of  Jesus;"  as  this  addition  is  wanting  here,  we  are  left  to  infer 
that  the  passage  of  the  Old  Testament  occurred  to  them  at  the 


The  Purification  of  the  Temple.  107 

time.  As  David  in  Psalm  Ixix.  10,  is  speaking  of  liiiiisclf,  wo 
can  of  course  suppose  no  direct  i)r()pliecy,  and  can  only  say 
with  Luther:  "the  individual  is  an  inference  from  the  genus." 
In  the  fact,  to  wit:  that  such  a  consuminc/  zeal  is  prediciitcd  of 
the  Old  Testament  saints  in  general,  the  Disciples  liud  a  justifi- 
cation for  the  zeal  of  the  Lord ;  cf.  on  quotations  of  this  sort, 
Tholuck's  work,  "Das  Alte  Testam.  im  N.  T.  (The  Old  Testa- 
ment in  the  New,)  2d  ed.  1839."     (3d  ed.  1849.'    Tr.) 

V.  18.  The  "Jews"  are  here,  as  in  i.  19,  members  of  the 
Sanhedrim.  They  do  not  deny,  in  the  general,  that  an  act  of 
such  zeal  is  admissible,  but  they  desire  evidence  of  the  right  of 
Jesus  to  do  it.  According  to  v.  23,  Jesus  at  this  first  presence 
performed  many  miracles,  but  as  his  entrance  into  the  temple 
had  occurred  before  these,  the  demand  of  the  Jews  is  easily  ex- 
plained. Jsixv'jsiv  like  d~odeau.  and  iKiosixv.  exhibere,  to  show, 
X.  32,  1  Mace.  vi.  34.  "Ou  like  the  German  dass,  (Engl,  that, 
seeing  that,)  is  used  in  similar  connection,  equiv.  to  ec^  tooto  on, 
vii.  35,  ix.  17. 

V,  19.  The  imperative  Ibaaxz  is  the  permissive  imperat.  as 
in  Matt.  xx.  32.  Toovov  must  have  been  spoken  der/vr/Mx;, 
(pointing  with  the  finger,)  and  as  the  Saviour  had  just  purified 
the  temple,  there  has  been  an  inclination  to  take  the  following 
view  of  the  meaning  of  his  words  :  "  Carry  on  your  desecration 
of  the  sanctuary,  of  which  you  have  just  been  giving  an  exam- 
ple, carry  it  on  to  the  destruction  of  the  temple  itself,  the  cen- 
tre of  your  symbolical  worship,  and  in  a  little  space  of  time 
I  will  establish  a  new  spiritual  temple  in  its  place:"  thus 
Henke,  Herder,  Liicke,  Bleek.  A  similar  view  was  held 
among  the  ancient  %vriters,  by  Athanasius,  Opera,  i.  545.  Since 
it  is  unmistakably  the  case,  that  the  Disciples  have  applied 
many  passages  of  the  Old  Testament  (without,  indeed,  deny- 
ing the  historical  reference,)  in  a  diftbrent  sense  from  that  which 
the  historic  exposition  demands,  and  since,  moreover,  they 
were  accustomed  to  the  symbolic  character  of  the  discourses  of 
Jesus,  it  cannot  be  regarded  as  singular,  that  at  a  laterperiod  they 
may  have  felt  themselves  obliged  to  seek  a  deeper  meaning  in 
such  an  expression  as  that  before  us,  and  consequently  have  ex- 
plained it  incorrectly.     A  meaning  which  is  not  historically 


108  Chap,  n.— v.  19. 

exact,  is  attached  to  expressions  of  Christ,  in  xviii.  9 ;  cf.  xvii.  12, 
as  also,  vii.  39.  Nevertheless,  we  feel  compelled,  after  repeated 
reflection,  to  persist  in  the  opinion,  that  no  important  objection 
can  be  urged  against  the  interpretation  which  the  Disciple  him- 
self gives ;  that,  on  the  contrary,  there  are  many  difiiculties  in 
the  way  of  that  more  recent  exposition  mentioned  above. 
This,  too,  is  the  view  of  Flatt,  Symbolse  in  Ev.  loh.  p.  1 ;  Hey- 
denreich,  in  HiifFell  and  Heydenreich's  Zeitschrift.  f  Predigerw. 
2  bd.  1  H. ;  Meyer,  Kling,  in  the  Studien  u.  Kritiken,  1836,  H. 
1 ;  ITeander,  (1.  c.  p.  400.)  We  begin  with  the  difficulties  which 
conflict  with  the  modern  view.  The  argument  used  by  others, 
that  the  New  Testament  kingdom  of  God  would  not  have  been 
designated  as  a  resuscitation  of  the  temple,  we  do  not  consider 
valid,  for  in  substance  both  economies  certainly  form  a  unity, 
as  in  John  x.  16,  the  "fold,"  and  Hebrews  iii.  2-6,  the  house 
of  God  in  the  Old  and  New  Testament  are  considered  as  iden- 
tical. We  would  rather  urge  the  following:  1)  Even  Strauss, 
Liicke  and  De  Wette,  now  concede  what  was  urged  by  me  in 
earlier  editions,  that  the  vouchers  for  iu  rpcalv  -fjiiepat^,  mean- 
ing in  a  sJiort  time,  do  not  seem  to  answer  their  object;  the 
proverbial  expression,  Hosea.  vi.  2,  Luke  xiii.  32,  is  only 
analogous.  2)  The  declaration  of  the  witnesses,  Mark  xiv. 
58,  Matt.  xxvi.  61,  is  called  by  the  Synoptists  a  false  wit- 
ness. We  cannot,  indeed,  impute  to  these  witnesses  the 
spiritual  apprehension  of  which  we  have  spoken ;  by  the  "  tem- 
ple made  without  hands,"  they  probably,  in  a  material  sense, 
understood  an  ethereal  temple  to  descend  from  heaven.  Some 
of  the  people,  nevertheless,  understood  the  false  testimony  as 
impl^nng  that  Jesus  had  promised  a  reformation  of  the  temple, 
as  we  see  in  Acts  vi.  12-14.  When  Liicke  and  De  Wette  say 
that  the  falsehood  lay  in  this  alone,  that  they  had  imputed  to 
Jesus  the  design  of  destroying  the  temple,  while  in  fact  he  had 
said:  "Destroy  i/e  this  temple,"  this  difference  has  no  essen- 
tial bearing  on  the  matter.  As  to  the  main  point,  the  witnesses 
who  are  called  false  had  repeated  correctly,  as  also  Liicke  him- 
self subsequently  declares :  "  On  historical  grounds,  I  do  not 
shrink  from  regarding  the  apprehension,  or  rather  the  explana- 
tion of  the  false  witnesses  in  Mark,  as  more  correct  than  that 


The  Purification  of  the  Temple.  109 

of  the  Apostlo,"  (John.)  3)  Had  Christ,  when  he  used  royrov, 
pointed  to  the  building,  the  Jews  must  have  supposed  that  a 
destruction  of  that  building  was  meant,  and  almost  unavoid- 
ably must  the  expresssion  have  appeared  to  them  as  a  boast, 
(Matt,  xxvii.  40.)  So  tar  the  difficulty.  That,  on  the  other 
hand,  the  explanation  of  the  Evangelist  gives  a  pertinent  sense, 
cannot  be  denied.  He  who.  Matt.  xii.  6,  used  the  expression : 
"I  say  unto  you.  That  in  this  place  is  one  greater  than  the 
temple,"  might  well  in  this  place  reply:  Destroy,  as  this  is  in 
keeping  with  your  unhallowed  disposition,  this  temple,  in 
which  in  a  far  more  real  manner  than  in  yours,  the  Deity  has 
made  his  habitation,  and  I  Avill  raise  it  up  again.  The  answer 
to  this  is  indeed  urged,  that  such  a  reply  must  have  been  abso- 
lutely unintelligible  to  those  who  put  the  question ;  but  is  it 
more  so  than  when  Jesus  refers  the  Samaritan  woman  to  a 
period  when  men  should  worship  only  in  spirit  and  in  truth — 
an  exjiression  whose  authenticity  is  expressly  conceded  by  De 
Wette  himself.  This  argument,  of  which  we  hear  so  much, 
with  which,  however,  the  very  interpreters  who  use  it  rarely 
remain  consistent,  we  cannot  in  general  acknowledge  as  valid. 
How  many  expressions  of  our  Lord,  which  were  originally  un- 
intelligible, at  a  late  period  bore  fruit  not  only  in  his  Disciples, 
but  beyond  doubt  in  his  very  opponents  who  were  susceptible 
to  the  truth.  And  besides,  do  not  exalted  spirits  utter  many  a 
thought  out  of  their  own  self  consciousness,  without  calculating  to 
what  extent  it  may  he  comprehended  hy  those  who  hear  them  ?  To 
this  may  be  added,  that  even  in  Matt.  xii.  38-41,  and  xvi.  4, 
Christ  proceeds  in  entirely  the  same  manner.  On  the  other 
side,  they  who  make  the  reply,  that  if  Christ  in  using  these 
words  pointed  to  his  own  body,  his  words  could  not  at  least 
have  been  referred  to  the  temple-building,  leave  out  of  the 
account  that  ill-will  which  the  superiors  of  the  people  displayed 
in  all  particulars,  (viii.  22,  57.) — How  widely  this  expression  of 
our  Lord  must  have  been  circulated,  is  clear,  not  only  from  the 
allegation  of  it  by  the  false  witnesses,  and  by  the  accusers  of 
Stephen,  but  from  the  mockery  of  those  persons  at  the  cross, 
Matt,  xxvii.  40 ;  and  as  John  is  the  only  Evangelist  who  has 
narrated  it  in  a  congruous,  historical  connection,   and  in  its 

11 


110  Chap.  Jl.— v.  20-25. 

original  form,  we  have  in  this  fact  an  important  evidence  of 
his  historical  fidelity. 

V.  20.  As  they  refer  Christ's  words  to  the  external  temple, 
the  mention  especially  of  the  space  of  three  days  makes  on 
them  the  impression  of  a  boast.  In  the  18th  or  15th  year  of 
Herod,  the  rebuilding  of  the  temple  erected  by  Zerubbabel  had 
commenced ;  it  was  not  entirely  finished  until  under  Agrippa 
II.,  A.  D.  64 ;  we  may  suppose  that  at  this  time,  probably  after 
the  completion  of  some  main  part  of  the  edifice,  a  cessation  in 
building  had  taken  place. 

V.  21,  22.  It  is  clear  from  v.  22,  and  from  xx.  9,  cf.  with 
Luke  xxiv.  46,  that  the  Apostles  and  our  Lord  himself  found 
prophecies  in  the  Old  Testament  in  regard  to  the  resurrection. 
Luke  xxiv.  26  shows,  too,  that  in  doing  this,  passages  were  had 
in  mind,  in  which  the  "glory"  of  Christ  was  spoken  of,  there- 
fore, especially  Isaiah  liii.  In  addition,  the  mode  in  which 
Christ,  John  iii.  14,  establishes  in  the  Old  Testament  in  a 
typical  manner  the  idea  of  expiation  by  one  crucified,  gives  us 
an  important  hint  as  to  how  we  are  to  understand  these 
authentications  of  the  resurrection.     Cf.  on  v.  46. 

A  purification  of  the  temple  when  Jesus  last  repaired  to  the 
Passover,  is  also  recounted  in  Matt.  xxi.  12,  Luke  xix.  45.  The 
identity  of  these  two  occurrences  was  first  maintained  by  some 
English  theologians,  Pearce  and  Priestly,  and  subsequently  by 
a  majority  of  the  recent  writers,  (by  Krabbe  himself,  1.  c.  p. 
248.)  After  most  writers  (even  Strauss,  1st  ed.)  had  contended 
at  first  for  the  correctness,  chronologically,  of  the  position  it 
held  in  the  synoptical  Gospels,  the  opinion  now  is  that  the 
position  in  John  is  the  correct  one,  as  also  Strauss  held  in  the 
3d  ed.  though  decidedly  on  the  other  side  in  the  4th  ed.  The 
Synoptists,  it  is  supposed,  had  probably  got  an  account  of  our 
Saviour's  driving  the  dealers  out  of  the  temple,  but  without  a 
complete  historical  detail,  and  as  they  knew  of  no  other  Pass- 
over, at  least  furnish  an  account  of  no  other  than  the  last,  they 
"have  disposed  of  it "  in  this  place.  We  ask,  first,  has  the 
repetition  of  the  action  during  Christ's  last  entry  into  the 
temple  any  improbability  ?  We  can  find  none.  We  should 
not  be   surprised  if  the  dealers  had  by  the  very  next  Pass- 


Effect  of  tue  Miracles  in  Jerusalem.  Ill 

over  renewed  their  evil  course ;  in  fact,  the  opposite  could 
only  be  anticipated  in  the  degree  to  which  this  extraordinary 
appearance  in  the  department  of  religion,  made  an  impression 
on  their  consciences.  Perhaps,  however,  the  disorder  was 
abated  for  the  second  year ;  if,  however,  in  the  third  year,  the 
impression  from  the  earlier  period  did  not  remain  in  sufficient 
strength  to  prevent  its  repetition,  there  is  nothing  in  this  to 
occasion  surprise.  Christ,  in  the  SynoptiSts,  does  not  allude  to 
his  having  acted  in  a  similar  manner  before,  but  the  tradition 
transmits  in  all  cases  only  the  more  striking  characteristics  of 
the  discourse.  To  these  would  especially  belong  what  Christ 
says,  V.  19,  as  we  see  by  the  repeated  allusions  to  it,  of  which 
mention  has  already  been  made.  K,  now,  what  the  Evangelists 
recount,  is  the  same  fact  mentioned  by  John,  would  we  not 
expect  to  find  in  them  this  important  expression  of  Christ  ? 
We  would  lay  no  weight  upon  the  other  points  of  dissimilarity 
in  the  narratives,  but  that  this  expression  is  wanting  in  the 
Synoptists,  we  must  regard  as  an  evidence  that  they  narrate  a 
difierent  occurrence.  It  has,  indeed,  been  thought  that  in  Matt. 
xxi.  23,  Luke  xx.  2,  we  have  the  same  thing  that  John  ii.  18 
mentions,  but  the  question  of  the  superiors  there  refers  to  the 
teaching,  and  occurs,  according  to  Matthew,  on  the  following 
day,  according  to  Luke,  on  one  of  the  following  days. 

Effect  of  the  Miracles  in  Jerusalem. — ^v.  23-25. 

Y.  23-25.  On  the  following  days  Jesus  performed  a  num- 
ber of  miracles,  which  are  also  alluded  to  in  ch.  iv.  45.  Jesus, 
nevertheless,  penetrated  the  hearts  of  men,  and  did  not  con- 
sider those  his  true  Disciples  who  had  been  moved  to  the  recog- 
nition of  him  merely  by  miracles  or  even  by  superficial  impres- 
sions, (viii.  31.)  On  the  importance  attached  by  Christ  him- 
self to  miracles,  cf.  especially  Neander,  1.  c.  p.  273,  seq.  Most 
of  all  under  the  bondage  of  the  senses,  was  that  class  for  whom 
miracles  had  no  other  than  a  sensuous  and  selfish  object,  (John 
vi.  26 ;)  those  were  a  step  higher,  who  demanded  the  miracle, 
indeed,  from  personal  interest,  but  who  allowed  themselves  to  be 
led  by  it  to  a  loftier  aim,  (iv.  53 ;)  of  a  yet  higher  grade  were 
those  who  felt  the  need  of  faith,  but  who  required  the  media- 


112  Chap.  IL— v.  25. 

tion  of  sucli  proofs  of  divinity  as  addressed  the  senses,  (iii. 
2;)  highest  of  all,  those  who,  hy  the  word  and  appearing  of 
Christ,  were  enabled  to  believe,  (x.  38,  xiv.  1.) — John  loves  to 
give  prominence  to  our  Lord's  profound  knowledge  of  men, 
(oh.  vi.  61,  64,  V.  42 ;  cf.  also,  Matt.  ix.  4.)  The  article  before 
d.vd^pa)7io(:,  designates  each  particular  man  whom  he  meets,  each 
one  with  whom  Christ  has  to  do,  (Winer,  p.  103,  Agnew  and 
Ebbeke's  Tr.  95.)  His  not  committing  himself  to  them,  can- 
not, indeed,  mean  that  he  refrained  from  disclosing  himself 
further,  for  Nicodemus  also  was  of  this  number,  but  that  he  felt 
a  distrust  in  their  actual  discipleship,  (vi.  61-66.) 


CHAPTER   III. 


Christ  leads   to  a  higher  position  of  Faith  one  whose 

BELIEF    had    been   EXCITED   BY   MlRACLES.^ — V.  1-15. 

Y.  1,  2.  The  Evangelist  gives  an  example  of  one  of  those 
wlio  have  attained  to  what  Luther  calls  "the  milk-faith,"  an 
example  in  which  Christ  revealed  deep  insight  into  the  human 
breast.  The  ordinary  view  assigns  Nicodemus  too  low  a  place. 
The  impression  which  Nicodemus  had  already  receivedj  must 
have  been  a  strong  one,  for  there  was  no  little  for  him  to  over- 
come before  he  could  go,  even  by  night,  to  Jesus.  He  was  a 
distinguished  member  of  the  highest  judicature  of  the  land, 
and,  as  we  may  conclude  from  that  fact,  a  man  of  property,  and 
advanced  in  life,  (v.  4  ;)  as  a  Pharisee,  he  was  specially  exposed 
to  temptations  to  self-righteousness.  Luther:  "Here  we  have 
a  pretty  spiritual  play  presented  to  us,  how  the  best  reason  and 
most  beautiful  piety  upon  earth  stumbles  at  genuine  truth  and 
spirituality.  He  is  assisted,  so  should  we  paint  it,  by  power, 
the  highest  piety  and  prudence,  all  combined,  and  yet  more, 
even  by  love  to  Christ;  yet  see  how  he  stumbles."  That,  nev- 
ertheless, some  of  the  prominent  men  had  received  like  impres- 
sions, may  be  concluded  from  the  ocda/ieu,  from  the  example  of 
Joseph  of  Arimathea,  and  from  what  the  Evangelist  says,  (xii. 
42.)  To  what  now  does  Nicodemus  confess?  To  faith  in 
the  prophetic  dignity  of  our  Lord,  cf.  with  the  "come  from 
God,"  the  "  sent  from  God,"  i.  16.  And  for  the  superhuman 
origin  of  what  Jesus  did,  he  draws  an  inference  in  regard  to 

1  On  this  division,  cf.  the  Dissertation  in  Knapp,  Scripta  varii  argumenti,  No.  vi.. 
on  V.  11,  15,  the  Dissertation  by  Jacobi,  in  the  Studien  u.  Kritiken,  1835,  H.  1, 
which  enters  thoroughly  into  the  author's  meaning. 

11*  (113) 


114  Chap.  III.— v.  3,  4. 

what  he  taught,  and  acknowledges  God  as  the  common  author 
of  both. 

V.  3.  Luther:  "That  might  be  thought,  forsooth,  an  un- 
friendly answer  to  a  friendly  salutation."  If  we  presuppose  the 
insight  of  Jesus  into  the  heart  of  the  Pharisee,  the  abrupt  charac- 
ter of  the  answer  will  not  surprise  us.  Of  a  similar  nature  in 
this  respect  is  the  answer  vi.  26.  The  full  discussion  of  the 
conception  of  ^'■hingdom  of  Grod,''  (for  which  Matthew  has  "king- 
dom of  the  heavens,")  belongs  to  Matt  iii.  2.  See  Tholuck's 
Commentary  on  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  on  Matt.  v.  3.  As  a 
designation  of  the  kingdom  of  the  Messiah,  the  expression  is 
found,  Daniel  vii.  14,  xviii.  27.  It  bears  this  name,  because,  in 
this  kingdom  to  whose  final  consummation  we  are  pointed,  1  Cor. 
XV.  28,  all  the  powers  which  oppose  God  shall  be  overthrown. 
According  to  the  difierent  degrees  of  enlightenment,  the  expres- 
sion was  naturally  understood  by  the  Jews  in  a  more  or  less 
spiritual  sense. — The  expression  loziv,  according  to  Hebrew 
usage*,  "to  experience,  participate  in,"  (iii.  36,  viii.  51.)  Whether 
d-vcod^ev  here  is  equivalent  to  deurepov,  (a  second  time,  again,)  or 
to  oupavo&ev,  (from  heaven,  from  above,)  has  been  up  to  the 
most  recent  period  a  matter  of  dispute ;  Origen,  Cyrill,  Non- 
nus,  Erasmus,  Liicke,  Meyer,  De  Wette,  take  the  latter  view; 
the  Syriac,  Vulgate,  Coptic,  Olshausen,  Neander,  the  former. 
It  is  certainly  worthy  of  notice,  that  in  v.  31  and  xix.  11, 
duco&ev  is  equivalent  to  oupavod-ev,  and  that  in  i.  13,  1  Joh.  ii. 
29,  iii.  9,  iv.  7,  v.  1,  iv.  18,  we  have  only  the  conception  of  "  being 
born  of  Grod,"  which  is  equivalent  to  obpavod^sv.  Nevertheless, 
the  fact  that  Nicodemus  puts  this  counter-question,  and  that  in 
this  question  he  uses  the  words  "to  be  born  the  second  time," 
is  decisive  for  the  first  mode  of  taking  the  expression,  which 
has,  in  the  New  Testament,  the  parallels,  "begotten  again, 
born  again,"  1  Pet.  i.  3,  23,  "regeneration,"  Titus  iii.  5,  "new 
creature,"  Gal.  vi.  15.  "Auojd^sv,  however,  is  not  exactly  the 
same  as  Tcdkv,  but  means  over  again,  that  is,  anew ;  Gal.  iv.  9, 
we  have  ndhp  autod^su  together.  Nicodemus  was  thus  referred 
at  once  to  the  centre  of  the  Christian  faith.  The  sixth  verse 
indicates  more  clearly  what  our  Lord  meant  by  the  new  birth ; 
that  it  is  the  origin  of  a  condition,  in  which  the  Spirit  of  God 
is  throughout  the  deciding  principle.     The  Pabbins  were  not 


XlCODEMUS.  115 

anacquaintcd  with  this  image ;  they  call  a  proselyte  a  new 
creature,  na^nn  r^\•^2  (Schottgen,  IIoriB  Talmud.  I.  704 ;  Light- 
foot,  Horse  Talmud,  p.  984;)  it  is  possible  that  Paul  presup- 
posed the  expression  as  familiar,  even  if  Christ  did  not,  in 
this  place. 

V.  4.  That  a  man  familiar  with  Scripture,  and  advanced  in 
years,  should  have  been  so  little  versed  in  figurative  expres- 
sions as  i^icodcmus  appears  in  this  place,  and  in  a  yet  higher 
degree  in  the  question  repeated,  v.  9,  (when  at  the  same  time 
it  was  common  to  call  proselytes  new-born,  or  ncAv  creatures,) 
has  to  the  most  recent  criticism  appeared  so  incredible,  that  it 
regards  the  conversation  as  a  fiction,  in  which  the  contrast  hag 
been  purposely  depicted  in  the  most  glaring  light,  in  order  to 
represent  the  Jewish  master  as  a  fool,  (Strauss,  Bauer;)  it  is 
characteristic  of  the  author's  manner,  too,  say  they,  to  spin  out 
the  dialogues  of  Jesus  by  carnal  misapprehensions  on  the  part  of 
the  hearers.  This  last  position,  in  its  general  application,  as  well 
as  in  reference  to  this  passage,  has  been  criticised  by  Schweizer, 
1.  c.  p.  32.  He  endeavors  to  show  that  Nicodemus  throughout  is 
not  speaking  of  understanding^  but  of  believing.  If  understanding 
were  the  thing  involved,  why  does  the  scribe,  v.  9,  repeat  the 
question,  since  then  he  could  have  been  thinking  of  none  but  a 
spiritual  birth,  and  why  does  Christ,  v.  12,  reproach  them  that  they 
did  not  believe  ?  The  language,  v.  4,  is  to  be  understood  as  com- 
parative, urging  a  parallel  case ;  JSTicodemus  doubts  whether  so 
great  a  thing  can  be  accomplished,  and  answers,  therefore,  that 
this  demand  would  be  as  difficult  to  fulfill  as  for  a  man  to  enter 
the  second  time  into  his  mother's  womb,  and  be  born.  To 
this  idea,  which  had  presented  itself  to  me  also,  at  an  earlier 
period,  I  am  now  inclined  to  give  the  preference.  We  must, 
then,  take  the  first  question  in  v.  4  as  purely  figurative,  the 
second,  on  which  Bengel  finely  remarks :  animosius  objicit  Nico- 
demus,  we  must  take  as  an  explanation  by  comparison  :  "  Can 
one  who  is  old  be  born  anew  ?  It  is  as  impossible  as  it  would 
be,  &c."  There,  is  then,  also,  a  better  occasion  for  v.  8  in  the 
connection  of  the  discourse ;  v.  5  and  6  confirm,  in  figurative 
expressions,  the  necessity  of  the  new  birth ;  v.  8  shows  the  pos- 
sibility of  it,  namely,  by  the  Spirit  of  God  freely  working.  If 
it  still  be  thought  necessary,  however,  to  find  in  these  ques- 


116  Chap,  m.— v.  5. 

tions  the  language  of  one  who  does  not  understand,  they  may 
be  thus  taken  :  "  You  cannot  mean  to  be  understood  literally  ; 
what,  then,  is  your  meaning?"  (Liicke,  Olshausen.)  —  By 
the  yipcDV  wp,  Nicodemus  applies  to  himself  the  words  of  Christ, 
(Beza.) 

V.  5.  First,  the  necessity  is  once  more  confirmed,  then  the 
nature  of  this  birth  explained  —  the  same  antithesis  as  in  i. 
13.  By  the  statement  of  the  begetting  principle,  the  mode  of 
generation  is  also  characterized.  But  what  means  the  specifi- 
cation ig  uoazo^  ?  Chrysostom  already  explained  it  of  baptism, 
and  ingeniously  after  the  analogy  of  physical  generation,  the 
paternal  principle  was  found  in  the  Spirit,  the  maternal  in  the 
water,  (Theodorus  of  Mopsuestia,  Ammonius,  Maldonatus,) 
thus,  too,  the  Catholic  and  Lutheran  interpreters;  Bucer,  also, 
and  subsequently,  Tittman,  Knapp,  Fikenscher.  For  this  an 
argument  is  found  in  the  connection  in  which  elsewhere  in  the 
New  Testament,  regeneration  and  baptism  are  placed,  (Eph.  v. 
26,  1  Pet.  iii.  21,  Titus  iii.  5,)  and  iu  odare  xai  (iiiiaxt  in  John 
himself,  1  John  v.  6,  which  Liicke  even,  interprets  of  baptism. 
It  is  probably  the  dogmatic  difficulty  that  in  this  way  Clirist's 
own  words  would  ascribe  to  baptism  a  like  share  with  the 
Spirit  in  regeneration,  which  has  led  especially  the  Reformed 
expositors  to  abandon  this  interpretation.  Zwingle  intei-prets 
"water"  as  a  figurative  designation  of  "knowledge,  clearness, 
heavenly  light,"  (cognitio,  claritas,  lux  coelestis.)  Calvin,  as 
epexegesis  :  "  aquse  spirituales,  non  fluviales,"  (waters  of  the 
spirit,  not  of  the  river ;)  so,  also,  Beza,  with  a  reference  to  the 
addition  norn,  Luke  iii.  16.  A  reference  of  a  comparative  nature 
to  the  baptism  of  John  is  assumed  by  Beausobre  and  Herder, 
the  former  says :  "  Si  quelqu'un  n'est  ne  non  seulement  de  I'eau, 
mais  aussi  de  I'esprit,"  (unless  a  man  be  born  not  only  of  water, 
but  of  the  spirit  also.)  Recently,  however,  an  efibrt  has  on  the 
one  side  been  made  to  reach  a  fuller  meaning,  and  on  the  other, 
with  no  dogmatic  aim,  to  fix  the  meaning.  The  former  by 
Olshausen.  Calvin  already  mentions,  that  some  regarded  water 
as  an  elementary  symbol  of  the  tender  disposition,  and  the  spirit 
or  wind  of  the  facile,  movable  disposition  of  mind  without 
which  conversion  is  impossible.  Thus,  also,  Olshausen  inge- 
niously regards  the  water  as  the  symbol  of  the  soul  yielding 


JSTlCODEMUS.  117 

itself  up  in  love;  the  spirit  designates,  as  it  were,  the  masculine 
potency  by  whose  cooperation  the  new  birth  is  effected.  But 
in  the  compass  of  the  !N"ew  Testament  usage  such  a  symbolical 
meaning  of  water  lias  no  analogy ;  on  the  contrary,  the  refer- 
ence to  baptism  has  the  greatest  analogy.  To  this  view,  con- 
sequently, even  the  negative  critics  have  returned.  But  in  the 
very  fact,  that  in  the  juxtaposition  of  "water"  and  "spirit," 
we  must  by  the  former  understand  baptism,  and  that  mention 
of  it  at  this  time  and  to  this  man  is  improbable  in  the  last 
degree,  Strauss  and  Bauer  think  they  have  found  a  new 
evidence  of  the  fictitious  character  of  the  whole  interview. 
But  the  idea  of  an  intentional  interpolation  of  this  reference 
to  water,  from  a  doctrinal  interest  for  the  sacrament,  (to  give 
additional  authority  and  value  to  baptism,)  is  the  less  tenable, 
as  the  expression  is  dropped  in  iii.  8.  (Meander's  L.  J., 
M'Clintock  and  Blumenthal's  Tr.  175.)  It  would  be  more 
plausible  to  say,  that  the  Disciple,  from  the  later  conscious- 
ness in  which  baptism  and  regeneration  are  brought  into  closer 
mutual  relations,  had  involuntarily  inserted  the  expression,  "  of 
water."  Is  it,  however,  true,  that  Christ  himself  could  not  have 
spoken  of  baptism  ?  Ilis  Disciples  certainly  baptized,  see  chap. 
IV.  2.  In  addition,  could  not  the  Saviour  express  from  his  own 
consciousness  what  his  hearers  at  the  time  would  not  under- 
stand ?  see  on  ii.  19.  We  ask  further,  is  it  true  that  if  we  refer 
"water  "  to  baptism,  it  can  be  apprehended  only  in  accordance 
with  the  Catholic  or  with  the  Lutheran  doctrine  of  baptism  ? 
The  mention  of  the  spirit  alone,  in  v.  8,  already  contradicts 
such  an  opinion.  It  may  still  be  said  in  accordance  with  the 
Eeformed  doctrine,  that  baptism  is  mentioned  as  a  pignus, 
signaculum,  (pledge,  seal.)  Or  we  may  say  with  Neander  and 
Liicke :  "  The  water  may  have  already  been  known  to  Nicode- 
mus  from  the  baptism  of  John,  as  a  symbol  of  the  purification 
of  the  inner  man."  Nevertheless,  should  not  the  mode  in 
which  elsewhere  "of  water"  and  "of  the  spirit"  are  placed  in 
opposition,  (i.  26,  31,  33,  Acts  i.  5,)  make  it  probable  that  our 
Lord  actually  had  John's  baptism,  and  by  consequence,  the 
baptism  of  repentance  in  his  mind,  so  that  precisely  these  two 
points  are  made  prominent,  on  which,  according  to  the 
doctrine  of  the  Church,  regeneration  rests  ?     The  i?  here  and 


118  Chap,  in.— v.  G-12. 

in  V.  6,  does  not,  indeed,  as  in  i.  13,  designate  the  "causa 
efficiens,"  but  the  element  from  which,  according  to  the  per- 
ception of  the  senses,  the  birth  proceeds. 

V.  G.  The  dignity  of  this  birth  is  stated  as  in  i.  13.  The 
antithesis  here,  too,  is  simple  :  bodily  and  spiritual  birth.  The 
neuter  more  general  than  the  masculine.  From  the  act  of 
begetting  on  the  natural  side  of  humanity,  originates  a  product, 
in  which  nature  preponderates,  and  which,  first  by  a  new  act 
of  grace  from  above,  becomes  genuine  spirit.  That  the 
■Kvvjjm^  "  Spirit,"  means  nvzuiia  rob  ^eou,  "  Spirit  of  God,"  is 
shown  by  v.  8.  The  product  which  in  a  spiritual  generation 
proceeds  from  this  Spirit,  is  of  like  kind. 

V.  7,  8.  These  verses  rigidly  taken,  do  not  lead  to  the  view, 
that  I^icodemus,  v.  4,  had  expressed  an  inability  to  understand, 
but  that  he  had  declared  his  doubt  of  the  possibility  of  such  an 
extraordinary  change.  They  show,  namely,  that  the  Spirit  of 
God  exhibits  an  uncontrolled  activity  surpassing  all  under- 
standing. JJueu/xa  and  nn  mean  both  wind  and  Spirit.  The 
first  time,  as  the  outcor  shows,  we  are  not  to  understand  the 
Spirit,  (Origen,  Augustine,  Bengel,)  but  wind,  which  is  used 
also  in  Ecclesiastes  xi.  5,  as  an  image  of  the  inexplicable,  and  in 
Xenophon,  Memorab.  iv.  3, 14,  as  an  image  of  the  Deity  who  is 
invisible  in  his  essence,  and  is  to  be  traced  only  in  his  operations. 
There  is  a  threefold  point  of  comparison  :  the  wind  blows  with 
a  strength  which  man  cannot  resist ;  its  operation  is  perceptible ; 
but  its  mode  is  incomprehensible — we  know  in  fact  in  but  few 
cases,  the  causes  of  the  disturbance  of  the  equilibrium  of  the 
atmosphere.^  It  is  a  question  whether  the  last  member  is  to  be 
understood  yet  more  strictly  in  its  particulars,  whether  by  it  is 
intimated  that  the  first  beginnings  and  preparation  for  regene- 
ration, and  its  last  goal  reaching  into  eternity,  are  incompre- 
hensible to  man. 

V.  9,  10.  The  words  do  not  compel  us  to  suppose  that 
Nicodemus  does  not  yet  understand :  they  have  not  the  charac- 
ter of  a  question,  but  of  an  exclamation.  In  this  way,  Luther 
regards  it  in  one  of  his  expositions  of  the  Gospel,  (B.  xi.  p. 

1  Luther:  "  David  has  hit  it,  Psalm  cxxxv.  7.  He  bringeth  the  wind  out  of  his 
secret  places,  (Eng.  Tr.  treasuries,)  cousequeutly  so  that  no  man  knoweth  and 
seeth  it." 


XlCODEMUS.  119 

2974,)  in  tlie  other,  however,  he  says  of  Nicodemiis,  "the 
longer  he  listened,  the  less  he  understood,"  (p.  1556.) — Even 
now,  NIcodemus  cannot  comprehend  the  greatness  of  such  a 
change.  Christ  had  spoken  of  the  power  of  the  Spirit  of  God  ; 
of  this,  a  teacher  of  the  Old  Testament  law  must  have  known, 
(Ps.  li.  12,  Ezek.  xviii.  31,  xxxvi.  24-28,  Jerem.  xxxi.  33.) 
The  article  before  did.  is  rhetorical,  (Bernhardy,  Synt.  p.  315, 
Passow,  ii,  p.  311,)  which  is  evident,  too,  from  the  solemn  ruu 
WapaijL  Erasmus,  Bengel,  Knapp  :  "  tu  ex  eruditione  notus  ille 
et  clarus  Israelitarum  doctor  es,"  (art  thou  that  teacher  of  the 
Israelites,  known  and  distinguished  by  thy  learning  ?)  "Whether 
we  translate  "knowestnot,"  or  "understandest  not,"  it  amounts 
to  the  same  thing. 

V.  11.  The  12th  and  13th  verses  have  inclined  expositors  to 
the  view  that  the  plural  is  to  be  taken  as  the  rhetorical  plural 
for  the  singular,  (Theoph.;)  especially  as  Christ  specifically 
attributes  the  opdu  to  himself,  (John  vi.  46.)  But  common  as 
this  use  is  in  epistolary  style,  it  is  not  found  in  ordinary  dis- 
course. But  it  does  not  seem  admissible  to  regard  the  prophets 
as  included,  or  John  the  Baptist,  (Knapp,)  since  no  such  refer- 
ence is  hinted  at.  Or,  as  v.  10  had  referred  to  the  testimony 
of  the  prophets,  in  regard  to  the  operation  of  the  Spirit,  did 
Christ  mean  to  designate  himself  and  the  prophets  together  as 
witnesses  for  the  transforming  power  of  the  Spirit  of  God  ? 
Maldonatus,  with  a  view  peculiar  to  him  :  de  omnibus  bonis 
testibus,  (all  good  witnesses  are  included.) — The  plural  Xafi^dvtTt 
may  be  compared  with  oltdajizv  in  v.  2. 

V.  12.  Ta  imyeia  and  to.  er.oopduca,  1  Cor.  xv.  40,  Phil.  ii. 
10,  mark  the  antithesis  of  nature  between  earthly  and  heavenly 
things  and  beings.  The  sense,  then,  may  be  thus  taken :  "  I  have 
now  spoken  to  you  in  earthly  illustrations,  how  would  you  believe 
if  I  had  imparted  heavenly  things  without  a  veil,"  (Luther, 
Beza,  Maldonatus,) — but  to  this,  v.  13  is  opposed.  It  would 
be  much  more  natural  to  expect,  in  this  connection,  that  the 
"earthly"  would  have  reference  to  the  regeneration  previously 
mentioned,  and  then  by  the  "heavenly"  most  writers  under- 
stand the  redemption  spoken  of  in  v.  14.  Yet  it  appears 
impossible  that  Christ  would  have  uttered  "the  heavenly"  in 
the  presence  of  those  who  were  not  in  a  condition  to  receive  in 


120  Chap.  III.— v.  13-15. 

faith  "the  earthly ;"  the  view,  therefore,  may  be  held  that  v.  14 
has  no  immediate  reference  to  v.  12,  since,  also,  the  redemption 
by  the  cross  is  likewise  an  earthly  fact.  So  Olshausen,  accord- 
ing to  whose  opinion  Christ  did  not  impart  the  "heavenly 
things  "  to  Nicodemus  and  those  who  attended  him,  for  from 
the  use  of  the  plural,  Olshausen  infers  that  he  brought  such 
with  him.  Bengel :  Causa,  cur  scriptura  de  multis  rebus  sileat, 
(the  reason  why  Scripture  is  silent  on  many  points.)  But  what, 
then,  can  be  the  meaning  of  these  "heavenly  things?"  Could 
Christ  give  other  communications  than  those  from  the  sphere 
of  religion  ?  Is  it  not  intimated,  also,  v.  31,  that  he  expressed 
"  the  heavenly  things."  According  to  Olshausen,  it  is  the  proper 
Ttw^  (how)  of  the  new  birth,  in  regard  to  which  our  Lord  is 
silent,  "  because  it  would  have  to  be  sought  in  the  ultimate  prin- 
ciples of  the  spiritual  world."  But  the  question  of  Nicodemus 
certainly  had  not  this  metaphysical  purport,  in  fact  it  is,  as  we 
have  already  remarked,  less  a  question  than  an  exclamation. 
!Nor  can  we  acknowledge  the  validity  of  that  difficulty,  that 
the  expiatory  death,  as  over  against  the  fact  of  the  new  birth, 
cannot  be  termed  inoofjavcov.  As  regards  the  new  birth,  it 
can  be  said  of  it  without  scruple,  that  it  is  izcyecop,  for  it  is  an 
earthly  fact,  which  hardly  requires  the  ingenious  remark  of 
Bengel,  that  it  occurs  in  margine  coeli,  (on  the  verge  of  heaven.) 
The  crucifixion,  it  is  true,  equally  occurred  on  earth ;  but  as 
this  mere  fact,  it  is  not  an  object  of  faith,  this  it  first  becomes 
by  the  significance  Avhicli  attaches  to  it  by  its  connection  with 
the  divine  counsel,  but  this  counsel  is  i-ouijdvcov.  Thus  in 
"Wisdom  ix.  16,  za  i-l  y/j:;  and  za  eu  obpavdl^  are  contrasted,  and 
the  latter  is  explained,  v.  17,  as  the  ^ook/j  of  God.  Relying 
upon  that  very  passage,  Liicke  would  thus  express  the  antithe- 
sis: "the  easily  understood — the  Jiard  to  be  understood,"  (of. 
the  similar  view  in  Cyrill  and  Beza.)  But  in  v.  13,  standing 
in  immediate  connection,  there  is  an  express  antithesis  of  y?] 
and  obpavo^,  cf  v.  21,  so  that  in  v.  12  the  meaning  deduced 
cannot  be  adhered  to. 

V.  13.  If  men  will  not  believe  Christ,  it  is  impossible  that 
they  should  understand  the  eTtoupduca,  (i.  18.)  As  the  "  descend- 
ing from  heaven  "  cannot  be  taken  literally,  just  as  little  can  the 
"ascending;"  and  "heaven"  can  only  be  the  designation  of  the 


NiCODEMUS.  121 

sphere  of  that  absolute  knowledge  which  proceeds  from  unity 
with  God,  (cf.  i.  52.)  Yet  more  clear  does  tliis  become  from 
the  addition  6  wm  iv  up  ovpautp.  The  participle  cannot  be  taken 
as  the  partic.  imperf  and  be  resolved  into  07  7jv,  for  a  perfectly 
idle  tautology  would  thus  arise.  It  follows,  also,  from  this 
proposition,  that  in  Christ's  judgment  heaven  and  earth  are 
no  self-separating  opposites.  "W"e  see  from  these  words,  that 
the  figurative  style  predominates  far  more  in  the  discourses  of 
our  Lord,  than  is  acknowledged  by  most. 

V.  14,  15.  If  Christ,  now,  notwithstanding  the  refusal  in  v. 
12,  designs  here  to  make  known  to  Nicodemus  "the  heavenly 
things,"  we  would  certainly  anticipate  in  an  author  exact  in 
the  use  of  the  particles,  some  other  particle  of  transition  than 
the  mere  xa! ;  either  xac — oi,  or  merely  oi,  or  at  any  rate  ouu. 
Nicodemus  had  been  placed  in  the  subjective  centre  of  the 
kingdom  of  God,  the  new  birth  had  been  announced  to  him. 
Christ  judges  him  worthy  to  be  introduced  into  the  objective 
centre  also,  the  doctrine  of  redemption.  He  lets  himself  down 
to  the  scribe's  feeble  measure  of  knowledge,  by  pointing  out 
to  him  in  a  well  known  Old  Testament  fact,  the  appearance  of 
that  very  idea  which  would  be  actualized  in  Christ's  own  death. 
The  Israelites  bitten  by  poisonous  serpents,  could  be  cured  by 
looking  in  faith  upon  the  brazen  serpent,  (Numb.  xxi.  8,  9, 
Wisd.  xvi.  6,  7.)  We  have  here,  also,  a  proof  of  the  profound 
manner  in  which  the  Old  Testament  was  interpreted  by  our 
Saviour,  and  an  intimation  of  the  way  in  which  he  is  to  be 
understood,  when  he  finds  even  in  Moses  prophecies  in  regard 
to  himself,  (v.  46.)  Precisely  those  two  features  of  the  doctrine 
of  redemption,  against  which  the  opposition  of  carnal  Israel  was  \ 
directed,  justification  by  faith,  and  that,  too,  a  faith  in  a  crucified 
one,  (1  Cor.  i.  23,  Rom.  ix.  32,)  are  typified  in  this  Old  Testa-  ; 
ment  fact.  Many  have,  indeed,  given  the  type  a  yet  more 
special  application.  That  wliich  healed  w^as  (without  poison, 
indeed,)  the  same  that  had  slain;  the  crucified  one,  who 
delivers,  is,  likewise  in  appearance  only,  a  sinner  and  male- 
factor, (Rom.  viii.  3 ;)  thus  Luther,  Bengel,  Olshausen,  Jacobi. 
The  purpose  of  the  Saviour,  at  least  with  reference  to  Nicode- 
mus,  was  not  to  enter  into  such  minute  doctrinal  details. — The 
meaning  of  lx^u'ju  must  be  determined  by  reference  to  viii.  28, 

12 


122  Chap.  IH.— v.  lG-21. 

ef.  xii.  32,  33,  In  tlie  latter  passage,  the  exaltation  to  heaven 
is  the  subject  of  discourse,  but  John  finds  in  it  an  allusion  to 
the  crucifixion;  when  Christ  says,  chap.  viii.  28:  ""When  ye 
have  lifted  up,"  he  had  in  his  mind,  no  doubt,  their  crucifying 
him.  In  Chaldee,  too,  ^\  also  means  "to  raise,  to  hang," 
in  Syriac,  ao)  ('Ip')  "to  crucify."  A  double  sense  may  lie  in 
it,  (see  p.  228,)  but  the  phrase  "lifted  up  the  serpent,"  which  is 
in  opposition  with  it,  presents  no  argument  for  it.  Death  on 
the  cross  is  presupposed,  also,  in  Matt.  xx.  19,  x.  38.  In  the 
words,  '•''every  one  that  believeth  on  him,"  the  universality  of 
the  redemption  is  intimated. — Was,  now,  this  profounder 
intimation  lost  upon  the  mind  of  the  scribe?  The  history 
proves  the  reverse,  and  thus  justifies  the  Saviour  in  judging 
fit  to  utter  the  "heavenly  things"  in  the  ears  of  Nicodemus. 
He  who  then  came  to  Jesus  by  night,  ventured,  ch.  vii.  51,  to 
ofter  a  word  for  Jesus  in  the  high  council,  and  when  we  see 
that  after  Christ's  crucifi-xion,  when  all  earthly  expectations 
had  vanished,  ]^icodemus  was  still  active  in  honoring  the 
crucified  Saviour,  even  in  the  grave,  (xix.  39,)  does  it  not  seem 
as  though  especially  this  word  in  regard  to  the  expiatory  death 
had,  in  the  end,  disclosed  its  meaning  to  him.  It  may  be,  that 
on  this  night  the  words  made  upon  the  scribe  the  impression 
(as  Jacobi  expresses  it,)  as  of  a  speaking  in  an  unknoivn  tongue, 
but  they  were  not  utterly  lost  upon  him. 

The  Evangelist   continues  the  thought,  that  the  mission 
OF   Christ  into   the  "World  is   the  work  of   God's  love, 

AND    that    unbelief    CONDEMNS    BUT    ITSELF. V.  16-21. 

V.  16,  17.  K  the  observation  made  ii.  19,  be  considered 
just,  that  Christ  expressed  from  his  own  consciousness  what 
far  transcended  his  hearer's  point  of  view,  this  division  might 
be  regarded  as  a  continuation  of  the  discourse  with  Xicode- 
mus  ;  at  least,  the  correction  of  the  idea  that  the  Messiah  had 
appeared  only  as  a  judge  to  the  Gentiles,  was  exactly  in  place 
in  a  conversation  with  a  scribe.  Thus  it  is  taken,  also,  among 
recent  writers,  by  Knapp,  Meyer,  Hug.  Since  Erasmus,  how- 
ever, most  interpreters  have  supposed  that  the  Evangelist  con- 
nects an  independent  train  of  thought  of  his  own,  enlarging 


Christ's  Mission  into  the  Would.  123 

on  the  theme  presented  by  the  Saviour's  discourse.  If  we  could 
doubt  that  such  is  the  case  here,  yet  we  could  not  as  regards 
V.  31-36  ;  and  if  the  matter  be  indubitable  there,  there  can  be 
no  further  scruple  here.  In  opposition  to  the  carnal  view, 
which  imagined  a  judgment  on  the  heathen  world  to  be  a 
prominent  design  of  the  Messiah,  the  Evangelist  gives  a  spe- 
cial emphasis  to  "every  one  that  believeth,"  and  shows  that  by 
the  appearing  of  the  only  begotten  Son,  life  has  also  been 
oftered  to  the  "world."  That  in  idcoxsv  there  is  a  reference  to 
the  death  on  the  cross,  may  more  readily  be  admitted,  as  such 
a  reference  has  preceded  it ;  nevertheless  it  is  not  necessary  to 
complete  it  by  adding  ec^  zbv  ^duazov,  (Olshausen,)  nor  with 
Meyer,  r.  xda/jtco,  but  it  corresponds  with  "resign,  give  up,"  vi. 
51,  Luke  xxii.  19,  at  other  times  rzapidcDxtv ;  it  is  consequently 
parallel  with  the  subsequent  dTzoffvsXXsa&cu  ec^  rbv  xbajiov^  but 
with  prominence  given  to  the  idea  that  this  was  connected  with 
humiliation  and  suffering,  (Phil.  ii.  7.) 

Y.  18,  19.  A  highly  spiritual  conception  of  the  idea  of  the 
judgment,  which  also  lies  at  the  basis  of  the  words  in  xii.  46- 
48,  (cf.  Acts  xiii.  46,  Titus  iii.ll,  John  ix.  41.)  If  in  the  appear- 
ing of  Christ,  forgiveness  of  sins,  life  and  salvation,  are  offered 
to  men,  and  if  faith  be  the  channel  through  which  these  bless- 
ings are  conferred  on  men,  unbelief  is  a  judgment  of  one's 
self.  Luther:  "To  liave  sin  is  not  what  does  the  harm,  but 
the  insisting  that  we  have  no  sin  does  the  great  harm."  The 
Evangelist  derives  the  unbelief,  not  merely  from  ignorance, 
but  also  from  love  of  darkness.  That  man  should  love  dark- 
ness appears  incomprehensible,  but  v.  20,  21,  assign  the 
causes. 

y.  20,  21.  The  more  man  abandons  himself  to  evil,  the 
more  does  he  regard  it  as  his  proper  self,  and  loves  it  as  him- 
self. As  that  which  is  holy  is  in  opposition  to  him,  and 
reproves  his  evil  works,  he  feels  himself  mortified  in  that  char- 
acter which  is  proper  to  him,  and  begins  to  hate  what  is  holy. 
Christ  presents  this  as  the  reason,  ch.  vii.  7,  why  he  was  hated 
by  the  world.  Man  begins  to  love  the  objectively  holy,  in  the 
degree  in  which  he  recognizes  that  the  evil  attaching  to  him 
is  something  alien  from  him,  and,  therefore,  does  not  fear  the 
reproving  of  it.     He  then  feels  himself  attracted  by  the  object- 


124  Chap,  m.  — v.  21-24. 

Ive  appearance  of  the  liolj,  as  his  efforts  are  thereby  sanctioned 
and  promoted.  If  we  compare  in  Rom.  xiii.  12,  1  Thess.  v.  8, 
and  in  John  xi.  9,  10,  how  the  spiritual  and  physical  meanings 
of  -fjidpa  and  ^a»c  play  allusively  into  one  another,  we  shall 
be  inclined  to  think  that  in  v.  20  there  is  an  allusion  to  the 
fact  that  evil  seeks  the  shroud  of  night.  'A?.:j&sia,  in  the  prac- 
tical sense  of  n:?x,  like  the  expression,  "das  rechte,"  ("what 
is  right,")  in  German,  expresses  at  once  the  theoretical  and 
practical,  (1  John  i.  6.) — ^Ev  ??£a>,  that  is,  so  that  the  works  have 
God  as  their  source.  It  is  in  John  we  find  direct  expressions, 
according  to  which  even  those  not  yet  converted  can  stand  in 
a  fellowship  with  God,  (viii.  47,  xviii.  37.) 

Strauss  has  pronounced  the  whole  scene  with  Nieodemus  a 
fiction,  originating  in  the  fact  that  the  reproach  that  the  Gospel 
was  confined  in  its  operations  to  the  lower  classes,  goaded  the 
souls  of  tlie  early  Christians.  But  with  historical,  as  well  as 
Christian  penetration,  Neander,  in  reply,  has  pointed  to  the 
fact,  that  the  Christians  of  those  earlier  times  gloried,  on  the 
very  contrary,  in  this,  that  the  humble  had  been  exalted  by 
Christ  to  so  high  a  point,  (1  Cor.  i.  26,  27.)  According  to  Bauer, 
too,  the  conversation  must  be  a  mere  fiction,  because,  through 
the  whole  of  it,  the  reflective  point  of  view  of  the  later  Church 
can  be  recognized.  "Weisse  does  not  go  so  far,  who,  though 
he  remarks  that  the  conversation  held  without  the  presence  of 
others,  and  first  communicated  by  Mcodemus  to  the  Disciples, 
could  not  be  very  faithfully  detailed,  yet  directs  attention  to  the 
fact,  that  from  this  very  conversation  originate  allusions  in 
Justin  Martj'r,  Clemens  Romanus  and  Ignatius,  which,  if  they 
be  independent  of  John's  Gospel,  prove  that  John  was  not 
advancing  mere  inventions  of  his  own;  the  presumption, 
indeed,  is  made  without  good  cause,  that  those  passages  are 
independent  of  our  Gospel,  (see  above,  Introd.  §  6.)  The 
privacy  of  the  conversation  has,  in  general,  given  a  support  to 
the  doubt  of  its  genuineness.  De  Wette  says :  "The  depth 
and  spiritual  fullness  of  the  discourses  detailed,  we  can,  as 
regards  their  essence,  derive  only  from  the  original  sources ; 
the  delineation  of  them,  we  cannot  regard  as  the  work  of  con- 
scious invention,  but  as  a  Spirit-drunken,  poetical,  free  reproduc- 
tion.''    But  no  unprejudiced  person  can  deny,  that  everything  to 


New  Testimony  for  Christ.  12o 

V.  15,  which  was  said  by  Christ,  was  properly  adapted  to  a  scribe 
like  Nicodemus,  and  the  subsequent  spiritual  growth  of  the 
scribe  confirms  this.  To  assume  with  positiveness  that  not  one 
of  the  Disciples  of  our  Lord  could  have  been  present  at  the  in- 
terview, would  involve  a  presumption  which  has  nothing  to 
establish  it,  for  Nicodemus  had  reason,  indeed,  to  fear  the  Jews, 
but  had  no  reason  to  fear  the  Disciples  of  our  Lord.  The  possi- 
bility, then,  that  John  had  direct  knowledge  of  what  passed, 
must  be  conceded.  Nevertheless,  if  it  be  granted  that  John  got 
his  knowledge  of  it  through  Nicodemus,  yet  if  the  conversation 
made  that  profound  impression  upon  Nicodemus,  which,  from 
the  subsequent  history,  it  is  evident  it  did,  he  would  have  been 
in  a  situation,  at  a  later  period,  in  his  close  relations  with  the 
Disciples,  to  give  them  an  account  faithful  in  all  essentials. 

A  NEW  Testimony  of  the  Baptist  for  Christ. — v.  22-30. 

V.  22-24.  From  the  metropolis,  Jesus  went  into  the  province 
of  Judea.  Through  his  Disciples,  as  ch.  iv.  2  informs  us,  he 
baptized;  meanwhile  the  Baptist  also  continued  his  baptism. 
We  have  here  additional  matter,  exciting  no  little  difficulty. 
First,  this,  that  according  to  Matt.  iv.  12,  Mark  i.  14,  it  seems 
as  though  Jesus  had  first  made  his  appearance  in  Galilee  in  his 
active  vocation,  subsequently  to  the  removal  of  John  from  the 
stage.  That  John  should  have  continued  his  work  at  the  same 
time  with  Jesus,  appears  also  surprising  in  a  high  degree. 
Should  the  morning  star  continue  to  shine  after  the  sun  has 
risen  ?  On  the  contrary,  we  would  even  have  anticipated  that 
the  Baptist  himself  would  unite  with  the  circle  of  the  Disciples 
of  Jesus.  The  difficulty,  indeed,  goes  yet  further — that  Christ 
should  have  caused  baptism  to  be  administered  during  the 
time  of  his  life  on  earth,  is  difficult  to  credit,  since  in  fact  he 
had  not  yet  established  a  Church,  (Bretschneider,  Weisse.)  Thus 
one  difficulty  attaches  itself  to  the  other.  The  following,  how- 
ever, may  be  advanced  in  reply.  If  the  Baptist  continued, 
simultaneously  with  Jesus,  to  work  independently,  he  must  have 
done  so  because  his  position  was  regarded  by  himself  as  the  Old 
Testament  one,  to  wit :  to  baptize  into  "  one  that  was  to  come," 
and  thus  to  extend  among  the  people  in  ever  widening  circles, 

12* 


126  Chap.  III.^v.  24-30. 

a  penitent  mind  and  the  longing  after  the  Messiah,  (Kern,  Tlib. 
Zeitschr.  1836,  ii.  11,  p.  54.)  If  we  may  regard  the  procedure 
of  the  Baptist,  eh.  i.  35,  as  exhibiting  his  rule,  he  was  not  in 
every  case  urgent  in  insisting  on  fellowship  with  Christ,  but 
confined  himself  to  giving  hints  to  the  more  susceptible  spirits ; 
even  in  ch.  i.  26,  he  merely  intimates  that  the  Messiah  is 
present,  without  specifically  designating  Jesus  as  snch.  His 
expressions  here,  too,  v.  29,  30,  confirm  the  relation  in  which 
he  stands,  just  as  the  history  narrates  it,  for  they  speak  not  of 
his  retirement,  but  of  his  decline;  they  speak  not  of  his  attaching 
himself  to  the  Saviour,  but  only  of  his  calm  inward  sympathy 
with  Christ's  self-dependent  activity.  As  regards  Christ's  bap- 
tism, it  certainly  could  not  at  this  period  have  the  character  it 
had  subsequently  to  his  resurrection,  ascension  and  outpouring 
of  the  Spirit,  (Matt,  xxviii.  19.)  To  say,  nevertheless,  as  Tertul- 
lian  already  does,  that  it  was  only  John's  baptism,  is  not  correct ; 
for  there  was  connected  with  it  a  confession  of  faith,  a  con- 
fession of  Christ  as  Messiah  who  had  already  api^eared,  while 
John's  baptism  required  only  a  penitent  confession  in  order  to 
participate  in  the  kingdom  of  Messiah  to  come.  As  regards, 
finally,  the  difference  between  John  and  Matt.  iv.  12,  we  can 
certainly  perceive  from  v.  24,  that  the  oral  tradition  fixed  the 
imprisonment  of  John  pretty  nearly  about  the  same  time  with 
the  appearance  of  Jesus.  But  the  passage  in  Matthew  does  not 
necessarily  lead  to  this  view,  if  we  bear  in  mind  the  very  com- 
pendious character  of  the  narrative  of  that  Evangelist.  The 
special  activity  of  Jesus  in  Galilee,  according  to  John,  first 
falls,  also,  in  the  period  after  the  return  from  the  first  Passover, 
(iv.  45 ;)  after  his  return  from  his  baptism  at  Jordan,  he  had 
remained  but  a  short  time  in  Galilee,  (ii.  12.)  That  point  of 
time  was  also  in  Matthew's  eye,  but  as  he  was  not  acquainted 
with  the  intervening  occurrence,  it  gives  an  appearance  as  if 
he  differed  from  John. — ^non  and  the  larger  Salim,  according 
to  v.  26,  lay  on  this  side  Jordan,  and  according  to  Eusebius, 
(Onomas.)  the  place  was  still  pointed  out  at  Jordan,  and  Robin- 
son found  a  callage  of  Salim  in  the  neighborhood  of  ISTablous. 
On  the  motive  assigned  for  baptizing  at  this  place,  in  the 
words  "because  there  was  much  water  there,"  Bauer  makes 
merry:  "had  not  the  Jordan,  on  whose  banks  we  must  picture 


jS'ew  Testimony  for  Christ.  127 

to  ourselves  the  scene  as  taking  place,  abundance  of  water  at 
other  points,  too?"  But  the  precise  fact  hacl  in  view,  is  that 
the  Baptist  had  abandoned  his  usual  place  of  baptism  at  the 
Jordan.' 

V.  25-28.  t  The  ovv  has  reference  to  the  fact  previously  stated, 
that  Jesus  and  John  were  baptizing  at  the  same  time.  Z/jtr^ac^, 
Acts  XV.  2,  a  question,  hence  disputation,  called  by  the  Rabbins, 
K'K/p..  By  the  connection,  it  would  seem  that  the  Jow^  gave  a 
preference  to  the  baptism  of  Jesus.  The  excitement  of  John's 
disciples  displays  itself,  also,  in  the  hyperbolical  expression : 
"all  men  come  to  him."  Ma.pToptiv,  with  dative,  to  otter  testi- 
mony in  any  one's  favor.  The  language  of  the  Baptist  bears 
to  a  remarkable  extent  the  stamp  of  genuineness  in  its  Old 
Testament  gnomologic  form,  v.  27,  30,  connected  with  the 
figurative  expression,  v.  29.  The  general  sentiment,  v.  27,  can 
either  be  placed  in  close  connection  with  v.  28,  "  I  can  arro- 
gate nothing  to  myself,  but  can  only  assume  the  position 
allotted  to  me  by  God,"  (Cyrill,  Bengel,  Liicke,  Neander,)  or 
with  v.  26,  "Jesus  would  not  have  it  in  his  power  to  maintain 
such  a  position,  if  God  had  not  assigned  it  to  him,"  (Chrysos- 
tom,  Olshausen,  De  Wette.)  The  Baptist  may,  however,  have 
uttered  the  general  sentiment,  with  reference  to  their  mutual 
relation.  The  reasoning  of  Gamaliel,  Acts  v.  38,  seq.  is  of  a 
similar  character. — \HX  ore  is  a  mingling  of  two  constructions, 
("Winer,  p.  552.)  ^Ey.ttuo(;,  in  v.  28,  is  by  Bengel  and  De  Wette 
not  referred  to  6  yjnazo^,  as  in  that  case  ojjxdb  would  be  required, 
(cf.  however,  vii.  45,  Acts  iii.  13,)  but  to  Jesus,  v.  30. 

V.  29,  30.  The  Baptist  now  declares  what  is  the  position 
assigned  him.  The  Old  Testament  frequently  designates  God 
as  the  husband  of  his  people,  (cf.  in  the  New  Testament,  2 
Cor.  xi.  2,  Eph.  v.  32,  Rev.  xxi.  2,  9.)  As  the  Messiah  is  the 
representative  of  God,  a  similar  affirmation  can  be  made  of  him. 
Maldonatus  thus  expresses  the  sense  of  the  first  words  in  v.  29 : 
quamvis  in  nuptiis  multi  sunt,  non  omnes  sponsi  sunt,  (although 

1  Neander,  Liicke  and  De  Wette,  following  RosenmuUer,  observe  that  "jJ";^  is  an 
intensive  form,  -with  the  signification  of  "abounding  in  springs."  It  is,  indeed,  not 
an  intensive  form,  but  an  adjective  form,  ( Ewald,  Hebr.  Gramm.  3d  ed.  \  341,) 
nevertheless  the  etymology  justifies  the  observation  of  the  Evangelist.  [Airuv, 
equiv.  to  "jy^  l^J'Jr?  adj.  from  "jV  "place  rich  in  springs,"  Ewald,  Lehrbuch,  6th 
ed.  p.  3G.J.    7th  ed.] 

2  (The  critical  authority  for  ^\ov6aiov  is  considered  now  as  decisive.     Tr.) 


128  Chap.  III.— v.  31-34. 

many  are  at  the  wedding,  not  all  are  bridegrooms.)  The 
expression,  "friend  of  the  bridegroom,"  has  a  technical  mean- 
ing, as  according  to  Hebrew  usage,  a  pcfitt'  napavufKpcoi;  acted  as 
mediator  in  the  marriage  suit  and  contract.  '^ Earrjxo)^,  he  stood 
without  interfering,  as  a  spectator  who  sympathizes,  but  takes  no 
part.  As  regards  the  "voice  of  the  bridegroom,"  Meyer  was  the 
first  who  referred  to  the  passages  in  the  Old  Testament,  in  which 
the  voice  of  the  bridegroom  and  the  voice  of  the  bride  are  a  de- 
signation of  the  festal  joys  of  the  wedding,  (Jer.  vii.  34,  xvi.  9, 
XXV.  10.)  Subsequently,  De  Wette  and  Liicke  also  understood 
by  the  joyous  voice  of  the  bridegroom,  the  jubilee  of  the 
wedding  festivities.  But  in  this  sense  it  presents  itself  in  the 
Old  Testament  passages,  only  in  the  distinct  phraseologic  con- 
nection ;  the  difiiculty,  too,  is  suggested,  that  then  the  com- 
parison has  no  proper  applicability  to  the  thing  compared. 
We  reach  this  much  better,  when  we  have  in  our  mind  the 
interview  of  the  bridegroom  with  the  bride,  during  which  the 
friend  who  has  brought  about  the  connection  stands  aside  as  a 
sympathizing  listener.  Understood  in  this  way,  the  expres- 
sion is  in  perfect  correspondence  with  the  position  which  the 
Baptist  assumed  after  the  appearance  of  Jesus.  Xa'ipttv  ucd, 
instead  of  with  kni  or  iv,  is  an  unusual  connection,  is  found, 
however,  also,  1  Thess.  iii.  9 ;  cf.  ■&ai>[jLd^zcv  d:d,  vii.  21.  The 
dat.  modi,  X^P^j  instead  of  the  accus.  is  also  unusual,  cf.  how- 
ever, Septaag.  Is.  Ixvi.  10.  The  last  words  in  v.  29  express, 
definitively,  in  what  the  destination  of  the  Baptist  consisted. 
The  expression,  "my  joy  is  fulfilled,"  belongs  to  the  phraseology 
peculiar  to  John,  (xv.  11,  xvi.  24,  1  John  i.  4 ;)  yet  the  sense 
here  is  somewhat  difierent,  and  has  a  historical  reason,  for  the 
Baptist  had  hitherto  rejoiced  in  hope.  V,  30  is  intelligible  only 
on  the  supposition  that  the  Baptist  continued  to  labor  at  the 
same  time  with  Christ. 

The  Evangelist  pursues  the  thought,  that  Christ  is  the 
ABSOLUTE  Teacher  and  Mediator  between  men  and  God. 
V.  31-36. 

Y.  31,  32.  It  is  true  that  even  recently  Hug  has  characterized 
the  position  of  Strauss,  ihat  the  Baptist  could  not  have  uttered 
the  following  words,  a?  "more  impertinent  than  true,"  and  it  is 


Christ  the  Teacher  and  Mediator.  129 

undeniably  the  fact,  that  the  leading  thought,  v.  31,  32,  coincides 
in  essentials  with  i.  30  ;  but  v.  35, 36,  especially,  are  too  specifically 
of  John's  (the  Evangelist,)  type  of  Christianity;  v.  32,  also,  is  in 
opposition  to  v.  26 ;  it  is  to  be  noticed,  too,  that  the  Old  Testa- 
ment figurative  mode  of  expression  only  goes  to  v.  30.  That 
the  Disciple  should,  with  nothing  interposed  to  mark  it,  have 
added,  to  use  Bacon's  words,  an  emanatio  concionis  lohannese, 
is  to  be  accounted  for  only  from  his  peculiar  mystical  ten- 
dency, which  did  not  separate  so  rigidly  between  objective  and 
subjective.  Conformably  to  the  fact  that  the  Baptist  had 
established  the  distinction  between  Christ  and  himself,  espe- 
cially in  the  preexistence  of  Christ,  the  Evangelist  here  also, 
has  established  the  specific  distinction  from  the  Baptist  and  all 
others  in  this,  that  the  origin  of  the  Redeemer  cannot  be 
referred  to  a  merely  human  descent.  The  first,  ix  r^j^c  yrj^, 
designates  the  origin^  the  second,  the  kind  and  character^  and 
with  the  character  corresponds  the  doctrine.  The  antithesis  in 
iTzauco  TcdvTiov  iazi  corresponds  to  the  ix  r^c  r^C  ^<^^^  and  the  xac 
— [xapTopel  to  the  ix  zr^^  yr^z  ^mXeI.  Christ,  indeed,  ch.  vi.  46, 
claims  for  himself  exclusively  the  seeing,  and  ascribes  to  man 
only  the  power  of  liearing  the  Father ;  but  in  other  places  this 
distinction  is  not  observed,  (ch.  v.  30.)  We  can,  moreover, 
in  the  hearing,  suppose  the  distinction  that  in  Christ  the  hear- 
ing does  not  consist  in  a  single  act.  In  the  plaintive  words 
xal — Xaix^dvsc,  we  recognize  the  voice  of  the  Evangelist,  (i.  11, 
xii.  37.) 

V.  33,  34.  The  accountability  which  attaches  to  unbelief  is 
pointed  out,  (Chrysostom.)  As  the  words  of  Christ  are  the 
words  of  God,  the  rejection  of  his  testimony  is  also  a  rejection 
of  the  testimony  of  God,  (1  John  v.  10.) — "Ov  b  &.  0.71.  used  of 
the  Messiah,  v.  38,  xi.  42,  xvii.  3,  xx.  21,  with  sfc  ^-  xbaixov,  x, 
36,  xvii.  18,  cf.  xviii.  37,  xi.  46.  Nearly  like  it  Ix  r.  d^zo'j  ipy., 
sometimes  with  £«c  ^.  xoafiov,  viii.  42,  xvi.  28,  xiii.  3.  The 
question  rises,  whether  these  formulas  have  the  same  meaning, 
and  merely  designate  the  prophetic  dignity,  (thus  the  Socinians, 
Grotius.)  The  phrase,  "whom  God  hath  sent,"  is  certainly 
applicable  to  every  prophet,  but  in  John  it  designates  not 
merely  the  outward  sending,  but  the  inward  calling,  see  vii.  16, 
viii.  42,  Isa.  xlviii.  16 — used  of  Christ,  the  internal  calling  to 


130  Chap,  ni.— v.  34-36. 

3Iessiahship.  "With  the  addition,  "into  the  world,"  the  phrase 
already  implies  more,  De  Wette  :  "  the  appearing  in  the  visible 
world;"  Baumgarten-Crusius,  on  ch.  i.  9:  "an  extraordinary- 
entrance  into  life,"  it  is  used  only  of  the  Messiah,  (cf.  xii. 
46,  also,  vi.  14.)  Yet  more  decided  is  the  reference  to  the 
preexistence  in  dno  or  Ttapa  ^eou  ipy^.  It  is  used,  indeed,  iii.  2, 
of  the  divine  call  in  general,  but  dilfferently,  viii.  42,  xvi.  28, 
xiii.  3,  as  the  antithesis  Ttoptuojiac  rtpba  r.  tt.  shows,  as  also  the 
motive  assigned,  viii.  42,  by  ouds  yap  an  i//ayroy  IIqI.  Augus- 
tine, on  viii.  42,  distinguishes  between  processi  a  Deo,  that  is, 
the  eternal  generation,  and  veni,  that  is,  the  incarnation ;  so, 
also,  Ammonias,  Hilary.  On  the  other  hand,  Origen,  Euthy- 
mius,  Maldonatus,  refer  both  to  the  incarnation.  Among  the 
recent  writers,  compare  especially  Tittmann,  on  xiii.  3,  and 
Frommann,  Joh.  Lehrbegr.  p.  388. — Ou  ydp-dcococrc,  in  virtue  of 
the  present,  and  the  want  of  aurw,  stands  as  a  general  propo- 
sition, and  the  expositor,  therefore,  if  he  take  it  in  a  general 
sense,  (as  was  already  done  by  Bucer,)  must  see  that  he  gives  it  a 
conformable  signification. 

Bucer:  "By  God's  giving  his  Spirit  to  any  one,  thus,  to  the 
prophet,  the  Baptist,  He  is  not  rendered  poorer,  so  that  He  can- 
not impart  it  to  the  others."  A  superfluous  observation,  for 
which  there  is  no  sort  of  necessity.  Bauer  presses  the  pres. 
8ida)(7:,  and  the  want  of  the  auzip,  to  such  a  degree  as  to  find 
therein  the  evidence  of  the  consciousness  of  the  later  Church 
forcing  itself  in.  But  why  should  not  the  thought  that  lies  in 
it  be,  that  God  can  and  will  do  it,  and  (as  the  connection  would 
lead  us  to  conclude,)  has  here  done  it  ?  The  direct  reference 
to  Christ  is  as  tenaciously  to  be  adhered  to  as  if  auzco  were 
supplied,  and  this  would  be  so  much  the  less  arbitrary,  since, 
as  Calvin  observes,  v.  35  is  to  be  regarded  as  determinative  and 
explanatory.  Erasmus  had  already  made  the  remark  in  gene- 
ral, that  the  Greeks  frequently  omit  the  pronoun  where  we 
would  expect  it,  John  vii.  17,  after  dtda^rji;,  so  also,  ch.  x.  29, 
xvi.  8,  cf.  similar  cases,  2  Cor.  xi.  20,  Eph.  ii.  10,  (see  Fritzsche 
on  Matt.  p.  138,)  iii.  18,  1  Pet.  ii.  11.  The  Rabbins  say  that 
the  prophets  obtained  the  Spirit  only  ^j^K^oa  "by  measure." 
'Ex  designates  the  rule  and  periphrases  adverbs,  (2  Cor.  viii. 
13.) 


Christ  the  Teacheri  and  Mediator.  131 

Y.  35,  36.  Love  is  the  principle  of  impartation,  we  need  not 
be  surprised,  therefore,  that  with  the  absolute  love  of  the 
Father  to  the  Son,  He  imparts  to  him  not  only  the  Spirit,  but 
absolutely  all  things,  (xiii.  3,  xvii.  1,  2,  Matt,  xxviii.  18,  xi.  27 ;) 
in  ch.  V.  20,  also,  the  absoluteness  of  religious  knowledge  in 
the  Son  has  its  origin  in  the  love  of  the  Father.  If,  now,  the 
Son  be  the  medium  for  all  the  blessings  that  proceed  from  the 
Father,  it  follows  that  "  eternal  life,"  also,  can  only  be  attained 
through  his  mediation,  and  the  organ  for  possessing  it  is  faith, 
by  which  the  thing  hoped  for  is  already  possessed  as  a  thing 
present.  Here,  indeed,  eternal  life  is  regarded,  first,  as  a 
present  thing,  as  in  v.  24,  xvii.  3,  then,  in  its  consummation, 
as  something  future ;  that,  nevertheless,  the  oux  oi/'sra:  pre- 
supposes an  oy/  opa,  may  be  inferred  from  the  antithesis  fjsus: 
i]  opyr^.  The  condition  of  man  without  faith,  is  a  condition  in 
6/)^',  (Eph.  ii.  3,)  and  the  correlative  of  it  is  miseiy,  the 
??avaroc,  (1  John  iii.  14.)  \47zeid-e7u  alternates  with  d7:iaT£7vj 
Rom.  xi.  30.     '£;:£  cum  ace.  embraces,  as  i.  33,  rest  and  motion. 


CHAPTER   IV. 


Ministry  of  Christ  among  the  Samaritans. — v.  1-42. 

V.  1-4..  From  v.  35  of  this  chapter,  it  may  be  inferred  that 
the  Redeemer  at  this  time  remained  about  half  a  year  in  the 
surrounding  country.  His  appearance  as  a  reformer  excited 
the  opposition  of  the  Pharisees  more  than  did  the  Old  Testa- 
ment activity  of  the  Baptist ;  as  Christ,  however,  regarded  it 
as  yet  too  soon  to  arouse  more  violently  the  spirit  of  persecu- 
tion, he  repaired  to  Galilee.  On  pres.  Ttoiec,  ^aKvc^ei,  cf.  on  i. 
40 ;  on  the  baptism  of  Jesus,  see  on  iii.  22.  Why  did  Jesus  not 
perform  baptism  himself?  It  is  best  simply  to  say:  because 
this  was  a  matter  which  could  be  attended  to  by  others,  which 
was  not  the  case  with  preaching,  (thus  Thomas  Aquinas,)  cf.  1 
Cor.  i.  17.  The  scrupulous  Jew,  in  order  to  avoid  Samaria, 
was  accustomed  to  make  the  journey  to  Jerusalem  by  the  right 
side  of  the  Jordan  in  Persea ;  Christ,  however,  was  above  this 
prejudice,  (Luke  ix.  52,)  for  which  reason,  also,  the  command 
to  the  Disciples,  Matt.  x.  5,  cannot  have  originated  in  mere 
prejudice. 

V.  5.  So-/^dp,  an  unusual  appellation  of  the  city  D^ty,  which 
elsewhere  is  called  ^^x^p-  or  to.  Sixcua,  and  lay  on  the  direct 
road  to  Jerusalem,  (Eusebius,  Onomast.  p.  143,  ed.  Bonfrere.) 
The  form  lo-^dp  is  regarded  by  some  as  a  derisive  name  given 
by  the  Jews,  equivalent  to  "'p.^  "falsehood,  idolatry,"  as  the 
Samaritans  Avere  regarded  as  idolaters,  (Sir.  1.  26,  [28.])  On 
the  other  part  the  Samaritans  called  the  ty^pan  n'3  in  Jerusalem 
wt^ytin  n^3  domus  percussionis,  (house  of  smiting.)  Perhaps, 
however,  the  change  of  the  p  into  the  p  is  accidental,  as  the 
liquids  are  elsewhere  interchanged,  as  Nebuchadrezzar  in  Jere- 
miah, BsXiap  and  BdiaX. — What  is  here  said  of  Jacob's  field 
(132) 


Christ  among  the  Samaritans.  133 

and  the  present  of  it  to  Joseph,  rests  upon  a  traditional  work- 
ing out  of  the  material  in  Gen.  xxxiii.  19,  Joshua  xxiv.  32, 
Septuagint,  Gen.  xlviii.  22.  In  Jacob's  field,  near  the  south- 
east entrance,  lies  a  vale  bordered  by  high  mountains,  and  on 
the  narrow  base  it  supplies,  rises  Sichem,  and  there  yet  exists 
a  well,  ^^dth  plantations  of  olive  and  fig  trees  near  it,  which 
Jews,  Clxristians,  Mohammedans  and  Samaritans  point  out  as 
Jacob's  Well,  (see  Robinson  ;)  Schubert  arrived  at  this  spot 
about  the  same  time  [spoken  of  here,]  just  about  noon,  and 
found  that  a  poor  family  had  pitched  their  tent  and  were 
spending  a  holiday  by  the  cool  spring.  To  the  left,  Gerizim 
rises  in  sight  to  the  altitude  of  some  eight  hundred  feet,  with 
its  springy  base  covered  with  lively  green;  on  the  right  the 
somewhat  steeper  and  less  watered  Ebal,  from  which  the  words 
of  the  curse  were  spoken,  (Schubert's  Reise,  &c. — Journey  in 
the  East,  iii.  p.  137.) 

Y.  6-8.  The  well  in  its  present  condition  is  nine  feet  in 
diameter,  and  one  hundred  and  five  feet  deep ;  when  Maun- 
drell  visited  it  in  the  month  of  March,  it  had  fifteen  feet  of 
water.  The  present  city  (under  the  modern  name  of  Xablous,) 
lies  about  half  an  hour  distant ;  as  there  are  a  number  of 
springs  in  its  immediate  vicinity,  it  may  be  asked  why  the 
woman  came  here  for  water ;  the  ancient  city  may,  however, 
have  been  nearer,  nor  is  it  said  that  the  woman  came  out  of 
the  city,  {ix  rrj^:  layLaptiac^  is  equiv.  to  Ia[xapziTc<:.)  She  may, 
perhaps,  have  come  from  the  neighborhood  of  the  city,  (Rob- 
inson's Palestine,  iii.  322,  seq.^) — The  sixth  hour,  according 
to  the  Jewish  computation,  was  about  noon.  Rettig,  who  pre- 
supposes that  the  woman  was  drawing  water  for  the  cattle, 
thinks  that  from  this  passage  he  can  make  it  probable  that 
John  followed  the  Roman  computation,  that  it  was  conse- 
quently the  sixth  hour  of  the  morning,  since  it  was  usual  to 
travel  through  the  night,  and  this  was  the  hour  at  which  cattle 
were  watered;  but  v.  15,  28,  render  it  difiicult  to  suppose 
that  the  woman  had  drawn  water  for  the  cattle.  According  to 
V.  35,  too,  this  journey  occurred  in  autumn,  when  it  was  rarely 
hot,  (Bulile,  Calendar.  Pakcst.  p.  52,)  and  when  traveling  by 
night  was  uncommon.     No  positive  evidence,  therefore,  for 

»( Biblical  Researches,  vol.  iii.  p.  111.     Last  edit.  (1856,)  ii.  285.     Tr.) 
K  13 


134  Chap.  rV.  — V.  9-15. 

the  Roman  computation  can  be  derived  from  this  passage. 
Since  Erasmus,  o5r<wc  has  been  regarded  as  anaphora  of  the 
partic.  as  is  exceedingly  common  in  the  classics,  cf.  also,  Acts 
XX.  11 ;  Josephus,  Antiqq.  viii.  11, 1 ;  de  bell.  jud.  ii.  8,  5.  But 
Fritzsche  (Hall.  allg.  Litteraturz,  1839,  Erganzungsbl.  No.  28,) 
has  shown  that  in  all  examples  of  this  sort,  ootco^  stands  before 
the  temp.  fin.  Consequently,  we  must  take  ooro)!;  equivalent  to 
a6z(0(;,  in  the  sense  of  ^ttAwc,  ^(;  ezuj^eu,  as  Chrysostom,  Cyrill, 
Bengel,  do,  which  will  imply  that  Christ  made  no  further 
preparations,  that  he  reposed  under  the  open  sky.  To  this 
amounts,  too,  the  observation  peculiar  to  Erasmus  and  Calvin : 
"  Cum  dicit  sic  sedisse,  quasi,  gestum  hominis  fatigati  expri- 
mit,"  (where  it  says  he  sat  thus,  the  air  of  a  weary  man  is 
expressed.) 

V.  9,  10.  The  woman  recognized  the  man  of  the  Jewish 
land,  probably  by  his  accent ;  perhaps,  too,  there  was  a  differ- 
ence in  the  clothing ;  perhaps  the  question  implies  not  merely 
surprise,  but  a  slight  contempt.  How  violent  the  hatred  of  the 
Jews  to  the  Samaritans  was,  is  expressed  in  Tr.  Sanhedr.  fol. 
104:  "He  who  receives  a  Samaritan  into  his  house,  and  enter- 
tains him,  deserves  to  have  his  children  driven  to  exile ;"  the 
hatred  of  the  Samaritans  to  the  Jews  is  shown,  Luke  ix.  58. 
This  hatred  matured  to  its  full  strength  from  the  time  of  the 
building  of  the  temple  on  Gerizim. — Forgetting  his  own  bodily 
need,  Jesus  enters  into  the  spiritual  need  of  her  who  asks  the 
question.  He  draws  her  attention  to  the  fact,  that  He,  the 
maker  of  a  request,  can  hestoiv  a  far  greater  thing  than  he  asks. 
The  greatness  of  the  gift  is  conditioned  by  the  dignity  of  the 
giver ;  yet  the  gift  appears  most  prominently  as  the  main  idea, 
because  of  the  antithesis  to  that  which  he  himself  had  just 
desired,  (cf.  Calvin,  Piscator.)  He  calls  his  gift,  living  water, 
to  wit :  xa.T  i^oxrjP,  dXrj&cuco^,  (by  preeminence,  truly,)  cf.  xiii. 
14,  and  on  vi.  32.  By  the  gift  he  means  the  life,  emanating 
from  him,  and  the  point  of  comparison  is  its  freshness  and 
perennial  character.  Calvin  :  "Aquam,  meo  judicio,  bonorum 
omnium  vacuitati,  qua  laborat  ac  premitur  huraanum  genus, 
opponere  voluit."  (He  designs,  in  my  opinion,  to  contrast  the 
water  with  that  void  of  all  good  under  which  mankind  labors 
and  is  weighed  down.)     The  aorists,  ^r;y<7ac  and  idojxsv,  not 


Christ  among  the  Samaritans.  135 

with  Luther,  "thou  wouldst  ask,"  but  with  the  Vulgate,  "  thou 
wouldsthave  asked." 

V.  11,  12.  The  woman,  taking  the  words  of  Christ  liter- 
ally, sees  in  them  only  an  unseemly  depreciation  of  the  well, 
hallowed  by  ages ;  he  cannot  draw  spring  water  from  this  well, 
she  concludes,  therefore,  he  would  give  her  water  from  some 
other  source  than  the  well.  The  address,  xupis,  was  in  that 
day  the  usual  form  of  courtesy,  (xii.  21.)  "With  ouze,  a  change 
of  construction  is  made,  as  3  John  v.  10. 

V.  13,  14.  He  justifies  the  promise,  that  ffe  in  the  true 
sense  can  give  living  water.  The  water  from  the  spring 
refreshes  but  for  a  time.  The  exception  might  be  taken,  how- 
ever, that  the  life  emanating  from  Christ  must  be  constantly 
made  our  own  anew,  and  then  that  appears  to  be  true  which 
Sir.  xxiv.  29,  (Ecclesiasticus  xxiv.  21,)  says  of  wisdom :  "  They 
that  drink  me  shall  yet  be  thirsty."  But  the  true  sense  is  to  be 
determined  partly  from  vi.  35,  partly  by  v.  14,  which  here 
follows.  The  figure  means,  this  water  will  once  for  all  be 
received  into  the  inner  nature,  will  be  immanent  in  man,  and 
will  attend  him  through  every  stage  of  his  being,  even  to 
eternity.  The  need  of  an  increase  of  this  water  is  not  there- 
by excluded.  Eather  has  the  image  been  explained  fully  and 
correctly  by  Calvin,  thus:  Spiritum  sanctum  scatebram  esse 
perpetuo  fluentem,  ita  non  esse  periculum  ut  exarescant,  qui 
spirituali  gratia  renovati  sunt,  (the  Holy  Spirit  is  a  gushing 
spring  ever  flowing,  so  that  they  who  have  been  renewed  by 
spiritual  grace  are  in  no  danger  of  becoming  completely  dry.) 
To  take  another  image :  the  spark  which  goes  forth  from  the 
fire  of  the  Eedeemer  becomes  in  every  human  breast  a  self- 
existent  flame.  After  Christ  has  brought  into  being  to  individ- 
uals the  communion  with  God,  it  advances  in  all  these  individ- 
uals to  a  consummation.  The  same  thought  is  found  in  viii. 
12,  cf  vii.  38.  "  Springing  up  into  everlasting  life  "  expresses, 
that  death  not  only  does  not  interrupt  this  life,  this  communion 
with  God,  (xi.  25,)  but  that  it  rather  brings  it  to  perfection. 
Bengcl :  Vita  seterna  conflueus  talium  fontium  imo  oceanus, 
(eternal  life  the  confluence  of  such  springs,  yea,  an  ocean.) 

V.  15.  The  woman  has  again  missed  the  spiritual  sense, 
except  that  she  has  so  far  been  reached  by  the.  words,  v  14, 


136  Chap.  IV.— v.  16-22. 

that  she  infers  from  them  that  a  water  is  spoken  of,  after  using 
which  thirst  shall  no  longer  be  felt.  Analogous  is  the  request 
of  the  people,  ch.  vi.  34. 

V.  16-18.  Why  did  Jesus  wish  the  husband  also  to  be 
called  ?  Shall  we  say,  that  he  anticipated  that  he  would  prove 
more  intelligent?  If  we  consider  that,  according  to  v.  18, 
Jesus  knew  that  it  was  not  her  husband,  we  will  be  led  to  the 
view  that  he  did  so  to  afford  an  opportunity  to  the  woman  of 
making  a  confession,  with  the  design  of  arousing  in  her  a 
feeling  of  guilt,  which,  when  aroused,  even  in  ruder  natures, 
calls  forth  soonest  the  desire  and  susceptibility  for  higher 
truths,  (Zwingle,  Calvin,  Melancthon.)  It  nevertheless  has 
been  objected  by  Strauss,  that  the  procedure  of  our  Lord  seems 
to  fail  of  its  aim;  for  the  woman,  v.  19,  (as  is  assumed  in 
Strauss'  exposition,)  diverges  from  the  ungrateful  theme,  and 
instead  of  pursuing  the  contemplated  aim  further,  Jesus  enters 
upon  her  question.  This  certainly  seems  to  throw  doubt  upon 
the  view  mentioned,  but  what  if  Christ  regarded  the  question  of 
such  a  character  as  that  by  its  answer  a  yet  higher  aim  might  be 
reached  ? — as  by  it,  indeed,  the  conversation  was  actually  put 
upon  a  spiritual  basis.  Besides,  may  we  not  say,  that  in  the  "  all 
things  that  ever  I  did,"  there  lies  a  confession  of  guilt  ?  It  may, 
indeed,  be  understood  as  a  mere  exhibition  of  her  astonishment 
at  Christ's  prophetic  endowment,  yet  the  expression  rather  leads 
to  the  supposition  that  a  consciousness  of  her  evil  actions  had 
been  aroused  in  the  woman.  In  what,  then,  did  her  guilt  con- 
sist ?  It  seems  clear  that  y-ai  wv  ov  li^tq.  xtX.  refers  to  an  illicit 
connection.  But  how  is  it  with  the  five  husbands,  were  they 
separated  because  of  her  disorderly  life  ?  or  were  they  also 
paramours,  as  Chrysostom  and  Calvin  suppose,  (cf.  the  exposi- 
tion which  is  given  by  Matthies,  in  his  commentary  on  1  Tim. 
iii.  2.)  The  latter  view  is  not  favored  by  the  expression,  since 
in  that  case  it  would  rather  be  xai  ahxoc.  ds  ou  vi/y  ^X'^^  '^■^^- 
Probably  Grotius  is  right,  in  thinking  that  the  woman  herself 
had  deserted  the  first  ones,  (an  abuse  in  opposition  to  the  law, 
which  first  spread  itself  in  the  later  time,)  and  the  sixth  was 
not  her  husband,  because  she  was  not  legally  divorced  from  the 
earlier  ones.  KaXtocr,  perhaps,  ironical.  'Ahjd^ia  as  predicate 
of  TouTO,  in  the  sense  of  the  adverb,  "Winer,  §  xvii.  9.     We 


Christ  among  the  Samaritans.  137 

have  here  an  instance  of  a  prophetic  knowledge  of  Christ, 
which  enters  into  details,  somewhat  like  ^lark  xiv.  13.  To 
what  extent  wc  are  to  suppose  in  the  Redeemer  a  prophetic 
knowledge  of  this  sort  in  regard  to  particulars,  is  difficult  to 
determine. 

V.  19,  20.  That  the  woman  makes  such  a  sudden  transition 
to  this  remote  subject,  may  be  accounted  for,  as  already  re- 
marked, by  her  wish  to  avoid  an  unpleasant  topic.  It  is  possi- 
ble, however,  that  she  was  actually  concerned  to  see  a  reliable 
settlement  of  that  mooted  question  on  which  the  enmity  of  the 
two  nations  rested.  Gerizim,  lying  by  the  road  and  meeting  the 
eye,  would  the  more  readily  prompt  the  query.  The  "  fathers  " 
are  the  immediate  ancestry  back  to  the  time  of  Nehemiah. 
John  Ilyrcanus,  about  129  B.  C.  had  destroyed  the  temple,  but 
an  altar  had  again  been  reared,  and  the  Samaritans  of  the 
present  day  still  pray  upon  this  mountain.     (Robinson.) 

V.  21,  22.  "While  Christ  maintained  the  law  to  the  end  of 
his  life,  and  enjoined  obedience  to  the  commands  of  the 
scribes,  (Matt,  xxiii.  3,)  his  prophetic  glance  beheld  in  the 
future  the  time  when  the  spirit  would  throw  off"  these  fetters 
and  create  a  new  form  for  itself.  Analogous  with  this  is  the 
prohibition  laid  upon  the  Apostles  of  extending  their  opera- 
tions beyond  Israel,  (Matt.  x.  5,)  together  with  the  prophecies 
of  the  reception  of  the  Gentiles,  (see  on  x.  16.)  The  abroga- 
tion of  the  Jewish  law  is  also  intimated  by  the  Synoptists, 
Luke  V.  36,  seq.  Mark  ii.  28.  It  is  surprising,  to  be  sure,  that 
Jesus  presents  in  explicit  terms  before  this  woman  the  highest 
point  of  view,  yet  we  must  confess  that  the  occasion  offered  by 
this  question  was  not  less  fitting  than  that  given  by  the  ques- 
tion of  the  scribes,  Luke  v.  33,  and  can  it  be  properly  said  that 
the  position  of  those  scribes  was  much  higher  than  that  of  this 
Samaritan  woman  ?  Certainly  the  reply  of  our  Lord  at  that 
time  must  have  sounded  in  their  ears,  as  well  as  in  those  of  the 
Disciples,  like  words  in  an  unknown  tongue.  Yet  who  would 
deny  that  those  very  words,  after  they  had  long  slumbered  in 
the  souls  of  the  hearers  uncomprehended,  may  have  become 
things  of  life  at  a  later  epoch  of  development  ? — Our  Lord  com- 
mences his  discourse  in  an  exceedingly  solemn  manner.  By 
the  prefatory  words:  "believe  me,"  the  object  is  characterized 

13* 


138  Chap.  IV.— v.  23-26. 

as  one  in  wMcli  the  natural  course  of  things  would  be  'j.  the 
highest  degree  improbable  and  unexpected.  Tw  Trarpc^l^cvgel: 
familiarissime  ad  arcem  fidei  adraittit  mulierem,  (he  admil;s  vhe 
woman  most  familiarly  to  the  citadel  of  the  faith.)  The  God 
whom  the  Samaritans  worship  is  designated  in  the  same  way 
as  in  Acts  xvii.  23.  The  Samaritans  acknowledged  the  Penta- 
teuch only,  and  as  they  were  destitute  of  the  Prophets  and 
Psalms,  they  wanted  not  only  the  complete  development  of 
theological  truth,  but  especially  also  the  entire  compass  of  the 
Messianic  prophecies.  God  was  consequently  for  them  in  a 
certain  degree  an  unknown  God,  hence  also  the  neut.  o,  "a 
Being  whom  ye  know  not."  De  "Wette  pronounces  this  exposi- 
tion "  entirely  false,"  and  gives  (as  Bengel  had  already  done,) 
this  sense,  "ye  worship,  and  thereby  do  ye  know  not  what." 
But  how  can  this  lie  in  the  words  ? — Under  the  j^/zsTc,  Jesus 
embraces  himself  as  well  as  the  Jews — could  he  be  man  in 
fact,  without  belonging  to  a  distinct  nationality  "i  IJpoaxovzh 
here  with  accus,,  subsequently,  v.  23,  with  dative.  Salvation 
was  to  come  from  the  lineage  of  David,  and  by  consequence 
from  the  Jews ;  they  could  not,  therefore,  remain  without  an 
accurate  knowledge  of  God.  Christ  speaks  to  foreigners  in  a 
more  exalted  way  of  the  national  importance  of  the  Jewish 
people,  than  he  does  to  that  people  itself. 

Y.  23,  24.  As  V.  21,  22,  have  expressed  negatively  the 
essence  of  the  future  worship  of  God,  it  is  now  expressed  with 
equal  solemnity,  in  v.  23,  24,  in  a  positive  manner.  This  time 
is  yet  future,  but  to  the  same  extent  to  which  the  spiritual  life 
has  already  begun,  (ch.  v.  25,)  the  spiritual  worship  also  has. 
/7v£D//a,  as  what  follows  proves,  presents  itself  as  the  leading  idea. 
Some  take  it  objectively,  as  designating  the  Holy  Spirit  as  the 
elemental  principle  of  worship,  dX.  then,  according  to  some, 
Christ,  the  absolute  truth,  (Athanasius,  Ambrose,  Basil,  Ben- 
gel;)  according  to  others,  "spirit  and  truth,"  designates  the 
frame  of  mind  in  which  the  worship  is  offered,  the  spirit  of 
faith  and  prayer,  and  the  uprightness  of  the  intention,  (Luther, 
Melancthon,  Bucer,  Calvin.)  But  the  axiom,  v.  24,  that  the 
mode  of  ivorsMp  must  correspond  with  the  essence  of  God,  as 
also  V.  21,  22,  clearly  shows  that  to  the  outer  sanctuary  the  inner 
sanctuary  of  the  human  spirit  is  opposed,  as  Augustine  says : 


Christ  among  the  Samaritans.  139 

In  templo  vis  orarc,  in  te  ora,  (you  wish  to  pray  in  the  temple, 
pray  in  yourself.)  So  also  Chrysostom.  And  yet  more  un- 
mistakably is  this  apprehension  of  it  justified  by  d.Xrj&sia  pre- 
senting itself  epexegetically,  which  just  as  strongly  as  in  ch.  i. 
17,  designates  as  the  absolutely  highest,  this  species  of  divine 
worship,  in  antithesis  to  the  Old  Testament  axed,  (shadow.)  It 
certainly  seems  now  as  though  these  words  authorized  a  mysti- 
cism which  rejects  every  species  of  outward  worship.  But  we 
are  to  distinguish  between  an  external  cultus,  which  has  been 
enjoined  with  the  design  of  a  preparatory  discipline  to  advance 
men  toward  that  which  is  internal,  and  train  them  for  it,  (such 
a  cultus  is  certainly  superfluous  in  the  measure  to  which  Christ 
is  formed  in  believers,)  and  a  cultus  which  can  only  be 
regarded  as  piety  representing  itself  outwardly — and  such  a 
cultus  will  not  be  wanting,  even  in  the  most  spiritual  Christian. 
While  the  cultus  of  the  former  kind  pertains  to  the  legal  point 
of  view,  the  latter  corresponds  with  the  spiritual  point  of  view 
of  the  New  Testament,  (2  Cor.  iii.  6.) 

V.  25,  26.  The  language  of  the  woman  shows,  that  foi 
the  time  this  word  also  of  our  Lord  remained  closed  to  her 
Nevertheless,  the  Redeemer  had  opened  up  a  sublime  religious 
prospect  in  the  future,  on  this  she  keeps  her  thought,  and  con- 
nects it  with  the  instruction  which  was  to  be  obtained  from 
the  Messiah.  As  the  Samaritans  acknowledged  only  the  books 
of  Moses,  they  may  perhaps  have  linked  their  Messianic  ex- 
pectations with  Deut.  xviii.  18,  in  accordance  with  which  they 
would  be  obliged  to  regard  the  Messiah  rather  in  the  light  of  a 
divinely  illuminated  teacher.  He  is,  in  fact,  delineated  more  as 
a  prophet,  than  as  a  king,  in  the  letters  sent  to  England  in  1718, 
by  the  modern  Samaritans,  (Repert.  fiir  bibl.  u.  morgenl.  Lit- 
teratur.  B.  ix.  p.  28.)^  As  the  Saviour  but  rarely  discovers 
himself  in  his  Messianic  character,  (cf  John  ix.  37,  with  Matt, 
xvi.  20,)  yet  in  this  particular  case  has  no  scruple  in  doing  so, 
he  acts,  perhaps,  with  a  reference  to  this  very  disposition  of 
the  Samaritans  to  intermingle  less  of  political  anticipation. 
Liicke  maintains  that  the  form  iyio  eiiu  is  in  classic  style  incon- 

1  If  we  could  regard  the  Carmina  Samaritana,  edited  by  Geseuius,  Leipzig,  1824, 
as  expressing  their  aucient  views,  they  would  argue  in  general  for  a  spiritualistid 
direction  on  the  part  of  the  Samaritans.  But  traces  of  Mohammedan  speculation 
and  theosophy  can  be  shown  in  these  poems. 


140  Chap.  IV.  — v.  2T-37. 

ceivable,  and  would  derive  it  from  the  Hebrew,  although  else- 
where he  observes  that  it  differs  from  Kin  'jx.  But  how  could 
"ich  bin  es,"  (I  am  he,)  be  expressed  in  Greek  and  Latin  oth- 
erwise than  by  iyo)  ec/jte,  ego  sum  ? 

V.  27-29.  The  Oriental  contempt  for  woman  appears  with 
special  strength  in  the  Rabbins ;  the  tract,  Kidduschin,  f.  17, 
says:  "R.  Samuel  observes:  No  man  salutes  a  woman,"  and 
tract.  Sota,  f,  20  :  "  He  who  instructs  his  daughter  in  the  law  is 
as  one  who  plays  the  fool." — The  reverential  timidity  of  the 
Disciples,  mentioned  in  v.  27,  furnishes  a  hint  as  to  the  relation 
in  which  they  stood  to  our  Lord ;  we  see  their  consciousness 
of  their  distance  from  him,  (xxi.  12.)  That  the  impression 
made  upon  the  woman  was  no  ordinary  one,  may  be  seen  in 
the  fact  that  she,  in  her  zeal,  forgot  her  occupation,  as  Jesus 
in  his  had  forgotten  his  need,  and  leaving  her  water-pot  she 
hastens  to  the  city  to  associate  others  with  herself  in  the  bless- 
ing of  which  she  had  been  made  partaker.  We  see,  'too,  what 
part  of  the  conversation  had  made  the  greatest  impression  upon 
her,  to  wit :  that  this  man  had  disclosed  the  course  of  her  life. 
That  she  still  did  not  trust  her  own  judgment  as  to  his  Mes- 
siahship,  cannot  seem  strange,  after  that  ignorance  of  divine 
things  which  she  had  previously  made  so  manifest. 

V.  30-34.  The  act  of  going  out  is  in  v.  30  expressed  in  the 
aorist;  the  act  of  coming,  in  the  imperfect,  as  daring  the 
coming  the  conversation  which  follows  took  place.  The  Disci- 
ples here  display  precisely  the  same  incapacity  of  soaring  from 
the  sensuous  to  the  spiritual,  which  had  been  displayed  by  the 
woman.  Already,  while  in  conversation  with  the  Samaritan 
woman,  and  yet  more,  when  he  beheld  the  Samaritans  stream- 
ing forth  from  the  city,  the  prophetic  glance  in  the  spirit  of 
the  Redeemer  opened  upon  the  future  spiritual  harvest  among 
this  people.  "With  this  thought  he  strengthened  his  soul.  It 
now  throws  into  the  background  his  need  of  food,  as  it  had 
previously  his  need  of  water. — In  Iva  the  final  idea  is  adhered 
to,  in  so  far  as  it  can  express  the  striving  to  do  the  divine  will, 
but  in  the  later  Greek  it  undoubtedly  is  used  as  a  mere  cir- 
cumscription of  the  infinitive,  as  Origen  also,  has  here  zoo  rot- 
v^aac,  see  on  i.  27. 

V.  35.     In  the  kingdom  of  nature  there  lies  a  great  interval 


Christ  among  the  Samaritans.  141 

between  seed  time  and  harvest.  Christ's  sowing,  short  as  is 
the  time,  commences  already  to  ripen.  ' Tfizt-  hysrs,  "  Say 
ye,"  points  to  a  proverbial  expression,  so  that  the  present  tense 
expresses  the  habit,  (Matt.  xvi.  2.)  The  proverb  is  usually  re- 
garded as  a  comforting  assurance  for  the  waiting  husbandman, 
that  the  harvest  is  not  far  off;  but  on  this  view  the  antithesis 
is  less  clear,  which,  nevertheless,  is  stronglj'-  indicated  by  the 
^^  behold."  Maldonatus  more  correctly  considers  it  a  phrase 
with  which  the  farmer  averse  to  labor  comforts  himself,  like : 
adhuc  seges  in  hcrba  est,  (the  crop  is  still  in  the  blade ;)  the 
iu  shows,  too,  that  the  interval  is  to  be  regarded  as  long.  The 
sowing  in  Palestine  went  on  from  the  beginning  of  November; 
the  harvesting  of  the  barley  did  not  take  place  till  in  the 
middle  of  April,  consequently  about  four  months  lay  between 
seed  time  and  harvest.  As  our  Lord  points  them  to  the  fields, 
it  is  highly  probable  that  it  was  just  then  seed  time ;  and  we  are 
thus  furnished  with  the  date,  to  wit:  that  Jesus  had  remained 
in  Judea  from  April,  when  the  Passover  occurred,  until  in 
November.  "I  say"  forms  the  antithesis  to  "ye  say."  In  a 
spiritual  sense,  the  seed  fields  are  already  ripe,  for  the  Sichemites 
are  approaching  through  them. 

V.  36,  37.  Beyond  doubt,  the  approaching  Samaritans  them- 
selves were,  v.  35,  already  designated  as  a  harvest;  just  as  clearly 
evident,  however,  is  it  from  the  words  that  follow,  that  the 
Saviour  regarded  this  harvest  only  as  the  beginning ;  in  rela- 
tion, consequently,  to  the  far  greater  harvest  which  was  close  at 
hand,  and  which  was  allotted  to  the  Apostles,  (cf.  xiv.  12,  xii.  24,) 
he  designates  himself  rather  as  the  sower.  It  is,  indeed,  in  other 
cases  true,  that  higher  joy  is  destined  for  the  reaper  than  for 
the  sower,  but  not  in  this  instance,  for  as  the  fruit  falls  to  the 
share  of  Christ  himself,  he  shares  in  their  joy  as  he  had  shared 
in  the  labor  with  them,  yea,  preeminently  for  them  had  under- 
taken these  labors,  (v.  38.)  "lua  designates  the  objective  aim, 
and  consequently  characterizes  this  result  as  designed  of  God. 
Men  are  the  grain  ;  eternal  life,  in  which  the  redeemed  are,  as  it 
were,  placed  in  security,  the  granary,  (ch.  xv.  16,  Matt.  xiii.  30, 
Rom.  i.  13.)  The  thought  expands  itself  into  a  glance  at  the 
relation  of  the  entire  operations  of  the  Apostles  to  those  of  our 
Lord;  in  the  entire  work  of  the  Apostles  his  appearing  and  his 


142  Chap.  IV.  — v.  38-45. 

work  in  humanity  were  necessarily  presupposed,  (xiv.  12.)  'i-'y 
in  V.  37,  equivalent  to  _"w,"  as  ix.  30,  "in  this  department  of 
the  spiritual  harvest."  A6yo<;  denotes  proyerb;  among  the 
Greeks,  also,  we  have  the  same  one  which  is  mentioned  here, 
<jc^^or  /iku  artdpooa,  dXXoc  S'au  airjaovzac :  "  Some  sow,  others  again 
reap." — The  article  before  dk/j&tvo!:  presents  a  difficulty,  and  as 
in  Cod.  G  K  L  it  is  probable  that  on  account  of  this  very  dif- 
ficulty it  is  omitted,  we  must  seek  an  explanation  of  it.  If  it 
is  a  predicate,  we  must  translate  :  "here  is  that  proverb  true, 
that  is,  verifies  itself."  If  it  is  adjective,  we  must  interpret  it: 
"here  that  true  proverb  is  in  place,"  (2  Peter  ii.  22.)  In  both 
cases  d.XTjd^cv6<:  appears  to  be  used  for  dhj&ijt:^  as  in  xix.  35,  yet  it 
may  be  made  a  question  whether  the  Evangelist  did  not  per- 
haps mean  to  say :  "  here  only,  that  is  under  these  circumstances 
of  a  spiritual  nature,  that  proverb  verifies  itself  in  the  highest 
sense,"  (Olshausen.) 

Y.  38.  The  Saviour  regards  the  impression  which  would  be 
left  among  this  people  by  his  meeting  the  Samaritans,  as  the 
basis  of  their  subsequent  conversion  and  introduction  into  the 
Church.  From  Acts  viii.  14,  their  willingness  appears  to  have 
been  unusually  great,  and  as  it  was  John  who  was  deputed  to 
go  from  Jerusalem  to  them,  we  can  the  more  readily  under- 
stand that  this  expression  of  our  Lord  had  in  his  ej^es  a  special 
importance.  The  use  of  the  plural  dXXoc  creates  some  surprise, 
but  is  sufficiently  explained  by  the  reference  to  the  preceding 
proverb. 

V.  39-42.  We  witness  here  among  the  people  an  extraor- 
dinary impulse  toward  faith,  and  a  readiness  for  it,  by  which 
the  strong  and  joyous  hopes  previously  expressed  by  the 
Saviour  are  justified.  It  is  worthy  of  notice,  that  no  miracle 
on  the  part  of  Christ  is  mentioned,  that  on  the  contrary  the 
mere  word  leads  them  to  recognize  in  him  the  Redeemer ; 
XaXia  is  perhaps  with  design  employed  instead  of  P.6^oc — (though 
Beza  contends  for  the  contrary,)  as  Calvin  says:  "videntur 
jactare,  sibi  solidius  jam  esse  fundamentum,  quam  in  lingua 
mulieris,  quae  ut  plurimum  futilis  esse  solet,"  (they  seem  to 
glory  that  they  have  now  a  firmer  basis  than  a  woman's 
tongue,  which  is  usually  very  unreliable.)  In  the  expression 
6  ao)r^p  TOO  xda/iou^  "the  Saviour  of  the  world,"  is  signified  the 


Second  Miracle  of  Chkist  in  Galilee.  143 

univei-sality  of  the  Messiah's  destination.  That  the  people 
actually  employed  this  expression,  cannot  be  maintained  posi- 
tively ;  nevertheless,  this  very  destination  of  a  universal  char- 
acter was,  on  the  ground  of  the  Old  Testament  prophecies, 
acknowledged  by  every  pious  Israelite,  (Luke  ii.  32.) 

The  mythical  exposition  which  in  this  narrative  is  a  complete 
failure,  was  dropped  by  Strauss  in  his  third  edition,  (in  the 
fourth  taken  up  again  !)  The  delineation  of  the  woman's  char- 
acter is  in  fact  so  individualizing,  her  various  expressions  which 
are  detailed  are  so  consonant  with  her  character,  that  they  alone 
are  enough  to  induce  us  to  the  recognition  of  a  historical 
fact.  As  regards,  however,  the  remarks  made  by  Jesus  in  this 
conversation,  the  scruple  may  be  raised  against  their  historical 
truth  :  first,  that  the  Disciples  were  not  present  when  they  were 
uttered :  in  the  next  place,  that  the  woman  had  not  the  capacity 
to  repeat  words  which  she  did  not  at  all  understand ;  and  finally, 
that  there  appears  no  motive  why  Christ  should  repeat  them 
to  his  Disciples.  In  spite  of  this  difficulty,  even  De  Wette 
acknowledges  features  of  psychological  truthfulness,  and  that 
very  declaration  of  Christ,  whose  meaning  must  have  been 
most  inaccessible  to  the  woman,  v.  21-23,  he  declares  to  be 
"indubitably  genuine."  "We  suggest  the  question,  whether  v. 
27,  which  implies  a  desire  on  the  part  of  the  Disciples  to  know 
what  had  passed  in  the  conversation,  does  not  give  support  to 
the  opinion  that  Jesus  himself  made  the  communication  to  his 
Disciples  ?  As  the  woman  had  narrated  to  her  countrymen  the 
part  of  the  conversation  which  was  most  striking  and  intelligi- 
ble to  her,  as  this  very  communication,  moreover,  had  produced 
a  great  impression  upon  them,  (v.  29,  39,)  the  desire  of  the 
Disciples  must  have  been  increased  the  more,  and  there  seems 
accordingly  to  have  been  a  sufficient  motive  for  Christ's  repeat- 
ing what  had  passed. 

Second  Miracle  of  Christ  in  Galilee. — v.  43-54. 

V.  43-45.  The  sentiment  which  in  Luke  iv.  24,  Matt.  xiii. 
57,  was  expressed  by  the  Saviour,  with  special  reference  to 
Kazareth,  rests  upon  an  observation  of  the  fact,  that  men  ai*e 
altogether  disinclined  to  acknowledge  anything  extraordinary 


144  Chap.  IV.— v.  43-53. 

in  those  whose  development  in  the  natural  way  they  have 
witnessed,  and  whom  they  have  been  accustomed  to  regard  as 
equals.  While,  however,  the  observation  of  this  fact  must 
have  deterred  Jesus  from  returning  to  Galilee,  it  is,  never- 
theless, as  it  seems,  adduced  as  a  reason  for  his  return.  The 
following  may  be  specially  mentioned  as  unsatisfactory  expedi- 
ents of  the  older  writers  to  get  rid  of  the  difficulty:  Firstj 
narp'K;  is  taken  as  native  town^  so  that  the  meaning  is :  " he 
went  to  Galilee,  to  wit:  to  Cana,  (v.  46,)  but  not  to  Nazareth, 
for  a  prophet,  &c." — (Cyrill,  Calvin,  Beza,  Piscator,  Grotius, 
Olshausen.)  Second^  IJaTpc(;  is  Judea,  where  Jesus  was  born, 
(Origen,  Maldonatus,  Liicke,  2d  ed.,  Ebrard,  Kritik  d.  ev. 
Gesch.  i.  350.)  Amid  the  many  exceptions  to  which  these,  in 
common  with  each  and  all  the  expedients  resorted  to,  were 
open,  arose  even  a  doubt  whether  these  words  could  have  pro- 
ceeded from  John.  Strauss,  in  the  extremest  perplexity,  has 
advanced  the  assertion,  that  the  anonymous  Evangelist  having 
learned  something  by  hearsay  of  Christ  having  expressed  such 
a  sentiment,  has  here  at  random  inserted  it,  "in  such  a  way,  to 
be  sure,  as  to  show  that  he  could  have  no  definite  idea  in  his 
mind."  To  impute  a  proceeding  so  perfectly  senseless  to  an 
author  whose  taste  and  talent  are  conceded  by  Strauss  himself, 
was  certainly  a  conclusion  too  monstrous.  Schweizer  thinks  that 
Judea  is  here  presupposed  as  the  TtarptQ,  "country"  of  Jesus; 
but  this  is  so  different  from  the  genuine  John,  that  it  would  give 
some  justification  to  the  idea  that  the  paragraph  which  follows 
is  a  Galilean  interpolation  in  the  Gospel  of  John.  According  to 
Bauer,  also,  the  Evangelist  considers  Judea  as  the  "country" — 
but  only  "from  an  esthetic  mode  of  viewing  history,  according 
to  which  Judea  alone  was  worthy  to  be  regarded  as  the  native 
country  of  Jesus."  A  solution  has,  however,  been  suggested  by 
Neander,  against  which  neither  Strauss  (3d  ed.,  retracted  in  the 
4th  ed.)  nor  Schweizer  knows  what  objection  to  urge.  Neander's 
view  is,  that  in  v.  44  it  is  assigned  as  a  reason  for  the  return  of 
Jesus,  that  the  Galileans  had  become  more  inclined  to  faith, 
through  the  miracles  which  had  been  witnessed  in  Jerusalem, 
a  view  which  goes  on  the  presumption  that  Jesus  during  his 
abode  in  Galilee,  mentioned  ii.  12,  had  performed  no  miracle. 
The  Evangelist  in  this  case  certainly  expresses  his  meaning 


Second  Miracle  of  Christ  in  Galilee.  145 

very  obscurely;  the  objection,  too,  may  be  urged,  as  Bauer  has 
done,  that  aceordhig  to  iv.  12,  the  return  to  Galilee  seems 
to  have  been  brought  about  by  the  danger  which  threatened 
him  in  Judca,  A  solution  was  first  given  by  myself  in  the 
fifth  edition  of  this  Commentary,  which  has  since,  with  some 
modifications,  been  adopted  by  De  Wette  and  Liicke.  In 
Greek,  ydp,  whether  used  as  argumentative  or  as  explanatory, 
sometimes  precedes  the  sentence  which  contains  the  argument 
or  explanation,  (Ilartung,  Patikellehre,  i.  p.  467.)  If  we  now 
translate  yap,  "namely,  to  wit,"  v.  44  then  serves  to  indicate 
why  the  Evangelist  attributes  the  faith  of  the  Galileans  to 
their  having  seen  the  miracles  performed  in  Jerusalem,  namely, 
to  show  that  this  readiness  was  not  in  contradiction  with  the 
earlier  words  of  Christ.  ""Ep-apxhiyqazv  is  to  be  taken  as  plu- 
perfect; ayroc  shows  that  this  observation  was  not  a  merely 
derisive  one  made  by  others. 

V.  46-53.  Those  who  had  been  at  the  feast  had  extended 
the  fame  of  Jesus  so  widely,  that  a  certain  functionary  of  the 
king's  court,  or  military  officer,  (for  the  word  ^aatXcxo^  can 
mean  either,)  was  induced  to  seek  his  aid.  This  man  appears 
to  have  been  one  of  the  officers  of  Herod  Antipaa,  and  was 
either  a  Jew  or  a  proselyte  to  Judaism.  The  words  addressed 
to  him,  as  the  man  already  possesses  a  degree  of  faith,  seem  the 
more  harsh,  as  Jesus  in  the  case  of  a  man  hitherto  unknown  to 
him,  could  not  well  utter  the  reproach  of  want  of  faith  in  his 
words,  as  he  does  in  the  case  of  the  Jews,  (x.  38.)  But  as  the 
faith  of  this  man  rested  merely  upon  hearsay  in  regard  to  the 
miraculous  works  of  Jesus,  it  was  naturally  weak,  and  it. was 
not  a  religious  want,  but  simple  necessity,  which  had  led  him 
to  Jesus;  that  faith  in  the  proper  sense  was  a  result  of  the 
miracle,  is  shown  by  v.  53.  Our  Lord  consequently  reproaches 
him,  that  he  had  been  led  to  come  to  him,  not  by  the  need 
of  the  heart,  but  by  the  need  of  a  miracle.  The  words  of 
reproof  looked  like  putting  him  off;  the  man,  therefore,  begs 
that  Jesus  would  not  interpose  a  longer  and  critical  delay. 
Yet  more  wonderfully  than  the  suppliant  anticipated,  did  the 
miraculous  power  of  our  Lord  display  itself;  Jesus  performs 
the  cure  by  a  power  operating  at  the  distance  between  Cana 
and  Capernaum ;  cf,  on  miracles  of  this  class,  Krabbe,  Leben 

14 


146  Chap.  IV.— v.  54. 

Jesu,  p.  285,  seq.  In  this  very  way,  however,  a  severer  test  of 
the  father's  faith  was  made.  He  endures  the  test,  goes  his  way, 
and  the  rejoicing  servants,  unable  to  wait  for  the  time  of 
his  arrival,  announce  to  him  what  has  occurred,  and  in  the  very 
same  words  in  which  it  has  been  foretold  by  the  Lord.  The 
question  of  the  father,  v.  52,  proves  that  he  was  concerned 
not  merely  about  the  result  of  the  curing,  but  also  about  the 
confirmation  of  his  faith  in  Jesus.  The  fact,  also,  that  he  leads 
his  family  to  acknowledge  the  Lord,  speaks  for  the  liveliness 
of  the  impression  he  had  received. — Impartial  critics  like 
Liicke  and  Neander  have  acknowledged  that  this  narrative  is 
not  identical  with  the  one  in  Matt.  viii.  5,  and  Luke  vii.  2,  as 
Strauss,  "Weiss,  Gfrorer,  have  recently  maintained,  and  that  it  is 
not,  appears  especially  from  this,  that  in  Matt.  (viii.  10, 11,)  and 
Luke,  the  centurion  is  designated  as  a  model  of  faith,  while  on 
the  contrary,  the  royal  officer  here  is  represented  as  one  whose 
faith  is  weak.  Nor  would  John  have  been  likely  to  narrate 
this  particular  miracle,  with  which  no  discourses  are  linked,  had 
it  been  identical  with  one  already  familiar  from  the  tradition. 

V.  54.  ndXcv  dtorepou  is  meant  to  refer  adjectively  to  arjfittov^ 
(xxi.  16.)  According  to  the  explicit  observation  in  ii.  11,  the 
meaning  of  the  Evangelist  must  be,  that  this  is  the  second 
miracle  in  Galilee,  which  harmonizes  with  the  presupposition 
which  V.  45  presents,  that  during  his  first  appearance  in 
Galilee  no  other  miracle  than  the  one  in  Cana  was  performed. 
The  Evangelist,  moreover,  regards  it  as  worthy  of  note,  that 
this  Galilean  miracle  also  occurred  in  Cana.  That  meaning 
is,  indeed,  not  clearly  expressed ;  by  forcing  the  words  the 
meaning  may  be  put  upon  them,  that  Jesus  designed  to  make 
Galilee  alone  the  theatre  of  his  miracles.  Induced  by  his 
interest  in  making  out  this  narrative  to  be  a  Galilean  interpo- 
lation, Schweizer  has  actually  maintained  this. 


CHAPTER  V. 


The  Healing  of  the   Sick  Man  at  the  Pool  of  Bethesda 
ON  THE  Sabbath. — v.  1-15. 

V.  1.  "While  in  John  [izra  touto  marks  the  immediate 
consecution  of  events,  pLeza  zauza  links  together  facts  more 
remote  from  each  other  in  point  of  time,  (Liicke.)  The  weight 
of  testimony  for  the  reading  kopzij  without  an  article  is  deci- 
sive, (Griesbach,  Lachmann.)  Were  the  article  genuine,  we 
would  be  compelled  to  regard  the  chief  festival,  that  is  the 
Passover,  as  the  one  meant.  If  it  is  not  genuine,  the  Passover 
ma7/  be  meant,  but  so  also  may  some  other  feast.  As,  namely, 
the  genitive  zwu  'loudaccou  is  already  sufficiently  definitive,  the 
article  may  be  dispensed  with  before  iopzr],  (Winer,  p.  118 ;)  it 
is  wanting  even  without  such  a  genitive  in  Matt,  xxvii.  15, 
Mark  xv.  6,  where,  nevertheless,  the  Passover  is  meant.  If  the 
Evangelist  here  means  the  Passover,  then  four  Passovers  are 
mentioned  by  him,  (ii.  13,  v.  1,  vi.  4,  xiii.  1,)  and  the  time  of 
Christ's  ministry  is  made  to  extend  over  more  than  three  years. 
The  majority  of  expositors  think  the  Passover  is  meant,  thus 
Irenseus,  [Eusebius,]  Luther,  Scaliger,  Grotius,  Lightfoot,  [Ileng- 
stenberg.]  Against  this  view,  however,  the  following  difficulties 
may  be  urged :  1)  that  then  too  contracted  a  range  of  events 
falls  between  the  two  Passovers,  ch.  v.  1  and  vi.  4 ;  2)  that  as 
Jesus,  when  the  Passover  mentioned,  vi.  4,  was  observed,  did 
not  go  to  the  feast,  and  not  till  he  again,  ch.  vii.,  goes  to  the 
feast  of  Tabernacles,  a  year  and  a  half  would  have  elapsed 
without  his  appearing  at  the  feast,  a  thing  hardly  to  be 
supposed,  (Hug.)  Hardly  to  be  supposed — and  yet  it  is  not 
impossible,  see  on  vi.  4,  and  vii.  1,  2.  The  first  argument 
would  have  weight  only  in  case  the  Evangelist  had  intended  to 

(147) 


H8  Chap.  V.— v.  2-4. 

give  a  full  biography.  As  Christ  returned  to  Galilee  at  the 
beginning  of  the  winter,  the  supposition  is  most  natural  that 
this  feast  was  the  Passover  which  occurred  the  following 
spring.  Since  Kepler,  the  feast  of  Purim  is  the  one  which  has 
been  specially  advocated,  (Hug,  Meyer,  Olshausen,  Neander.^) 
But  the  positive  arguments  of  Hug  will  not  stand  the  proof,  and 
against  this  view  are  these  facts :  1)  that  this  feast  falls  a  month 
before  the  Passover,  and  it  is  not  probable  that  Jesus,  if  he 
attended  the  Passover  mentioned,  vi.  4,  then  returned  to  Galilee ; 
or  if  he  did  not  attend  it,  that  he  neglected  the  leading  festival, 
and  repaired  to  a  feast  not  established  in  the  Old  Testament, 
but  only  in  the  ordinance  of  the  later  Judaism.  It  is  true,  the 
reply  may  be  made,  that  he  attended  the  feast  of  Dedication, 
chap.  X.  22,  which  was  not  required  by  the  law ;  but  it  is  to  be 
observed  that  he  was  on  that  occasion  already  in  Jerusalem, 
and  did  not  go  there  for  the  purpose  of  attending  that  feast ; 
2)  as  the  feast  of  Purim  was  not  necessarily  kept  in  the 
capital,  but  could  be  observed  any  where,  there  would  seem  to 
be  so  much  the  less  motive  for  a  journey  to  this  feast.  The 
supposition  that  it  was  the  feast  of  Pentecost,  (Cyrill,  Chrj^sos- 
tom,  Erasmus,  Bengel,)  or  the  feast  of  Tabernacles,  (Cocceius,) 
is  irreconcilable  with  the  date  which  iv.  35  furnishes,  since 
the  former  occurs  fifty  days  after  Easter,  and  the  latter  in 
autumn. 

Y.  2.  A  learned  dissertation  on  this  passage  by  Joh.  Conr. 
Hottinger,  may  be  found  in  the  Thesaurus  Novus  Philol.  et 
Theol.  T.  ii.  p.  476.  The  Evangelist  says  "now  there  es,"  from 
which  the  inference  might  be  drawn  that  Jerusalem  was  stand- 
ing* when  he  wrote, -(thus  Bengel;)  the  explanation,  however, 
is  that  this  pool  remained  after  the  destruction  of  the  city,  in 
fact  it  was  still  pointed  out  in  the  time  of  Tertullian  and  even 
of  Eusebius.^  FloXri  is  to  be  supplied  after  Tvpoj^aTrxfj,  ISTehem. 
iii.  1, 32,  xii.  39.  ^HindsYo/usp-^,  for  which  Cod.  D  reads 
Xeyoixhrj^  indicates  an  additional  name,  and  such  the  word 
Bethesda  shows   itself  according  to  its  meaning    pCQw  Akli 

1  Neander  feels  that  every  thing  else  favors  the  supposition  that  it  was  the  Pass- 
over, and  is  led  to  the  supposition  that  it  was  the  feast  of  Purim  only  by  the  want 
of  the  article,  (Leben  Jesu,  3d  ed.  p.  434;  Tr.  217.) 

2  Might  not  the  present,  perhaps,  be  used  simply  for  the  vividness  with  which  the 
object  is  present  to  the  mind's  eye?  of.  1  Johniv.  17. 


t 

Tiiii  IIkalinij  at  the  Pool  of  Betiiesda.  149 

(Syr.)  "house  of  mercy,  place  of  grace."  By  porches  we  arc 
not  to  understand  mere  colonnades  ope7i  at  the  sides,  but  along 
the  one  side  might  run  a  wall,  as  was  the  case  with  the  porch 
{ttocxUt^,)  at  Athens  ;  we  may  either  suppose  them  to  have  been 
covered  rows  of  columns  inclosing  the  pool,  in  the  form  of  ji 
pentagon,  and  giving  shelter  to  the  sick,  or  possibly  in  accord- 
ance with  the  later  usage  of  azod,  suppose  them  to  have  been 
bathing  houses  close  by  the  pool.  The  identity  with  the  an- 
cient Bethesda,  of  the  deep  reservoir  in  Jerusalem,  which  in  oui 
day  bears  the  name  of  Bethesda  or  sheep-pool,  Robinson  re- 
gards as  improbable,  and  is  more  inclined  to  find  it  in  the  inter- 
mitting Fountain  of  the  Virgin,  on  the  south-eastern  slope  of 
the  Temple  Mount,  (Paliistina,  B.  2,  p.  136,  seq.  158,  seq.;  Bib- 
lical Eesearches,  (1856,)  vol.  i.  293,  330.)  From  v.  Y,  and  the 
close  of  V.  3,  it  appears  that  this  spring  probably  was  gaseous, 
and  bubbled  at  intervals ;  nothing  is  said  to  show  whether  xard 
xaipou  refers  to  regular  periods.  There  is  a  gaseous  spring 
of  this  kind  in  Kissiugen,  for  example,  which  after  a  rush- 
ing sound  about  the  same  time  every  day  commences  to  bubble, 
and  is  most  efficacious  at  the  very  time  the  gas  is  making  itj 
escape.  Eusebius,  in  his  Onomasticon,  ed.  Bonfrere,  p.  41, 
mentions  that  in  his  time  two  pools  by  the  name  of  Bethesda 
were  pointed  out,  the  water  of  one  of  which  at  times  became 
red  in  a  singular  way ;  this  would  indicate  mineral  properties. 

Y.  3,  4.  Not  merely  persons  afilicted  with  diseases  of  the 
lighter  sort,  but  even  the  blind  were  found  there — among  the 
blind,  however,  are  to  be  included  the  various  classes  of  suffer- 
ers with  ophthalmic  diseases ;  the  gas  spring  at  Kissingen,  of 
which  we  have  just  spoken,  is  especially  used  in  diseases  of  the 
eye.  Among  the  "withered"  we  are  to  comprehend  the  par- 
alytic, a  class  to  which,  indeed,  the  sick  man  whom  Jesus  cured 
belonged,  for  paralysis  is  sometimes  produced  by  extraordinary 
debilitation  of  the  muscles,  that  is  by  a  dwindling  of  them. 

Cod.  B  &  C*  omit  v.  4  and  the  close  of  v.  3  ;  some  Coptic 
MSS.  also,  and  N"onnus,  Cod.  C,  and  some  of  the  less  important 
MSS.  omit  V.  4.  Most  of  the  Minuscc.  mark  it  with  aste- 
risks, that  is,  with  the  sign  of  its  being  suspicious,  or  with  the 
obelus,  the  sign  of  spuriousness ;  the  last  words  of  v.  3,  ixdey. 
— xiuTjOtv^  are  wanting  in  A.  L.  18.     On  the  other  hand,  this 

14* 


150  Chap.  V.  — v.  5-13. 

passage  is  found  in  the  ancient  Vulgate  and  Peschito  versions, 
and  so  early  as  Tertullian.  In  recent  times,  Bretschueider  in  his 
Probabilia,  and  Bauer,  in  order  to  help  out  the  position  that 
the  Gospel  is  spurious,  have  been  decidedly  for  the  genuine- 
ness of  this  passage,  and  De  "Wette  has  been  inclined  to  the 
same  view ;  since  Mill,  the  other  expositors  have  decided 
for  the  spuriousness  of  it.  Notwithstanding  the  antiquity 
of  the  witnesses  which  accredit  the  passage,  we  must  adopt 
the  latter  view,  particularly  when  regard  is  had  to  the  numer- 
ous variations  in  those  which  have  the  passage,  and  to  the  fact 
that  no  reason  for  the  omission  can  be  given,  (compare  what 
Liicke,  3d  ed.  urges  against  De  Wette  and  Bauer.)  As  Ter- 
tullian, Chrysostom,  and  others,  find  a  symbol  of  the  baptismal 
water  in  this  water  so  wonderfully  impregnated  with  divine 
power,  a  dogmatic  interest  would  rather  have  led  to  the  reten- 
tion than  to  the  exclusion  of  the  passage ;  we  think,  therefore, 
that  the  addition  originated  with  some  reader  in  Palestine,  who 
held  the  opinion  that  angels  preside  over  the  particular  pow- 
ers of  nature.  The  idea  of  angel,  and  the  modern  idea  of 
power,  run  into  each  other  in  the  Old  Testament,  for  originally, 
"^^tlQ.  is  an  abstract  form,  legatio,  a  beaming  forth  of  God ;  cf.  Rev. 
xvi.  5. 

Y.  5.  Luther  and  most  others  unite  ij^eiv  iv  rjj  dad^evda 
equivalent  to  da&evid:;  ^X^'^y  "who  had  been  sick  thirty-eight 
years,"  to  which  De  Wette  objects,  that  then  the  part,  prass. 
i)[coiJ  would  not  be  proper.  But  the  participle  present  stands 
with  the  perfect,  when  the  action  is  considered  as  continuing, 
(Buttman,  15th  ed.  p.  433 ;  18th  ed.  translated  by  Edward 
Robinson,  p.  400.)  The  interpretation  of  De  Wette,  is  however, 
certainly  admissible :  "  who  had  passed  eight  and  thirty  years 
in  the  sickness,"  (^Aa^  sickness ;)  the  article  "the"  (that)  car- 
ries in  it  a  reference  to  the  diseases  mentioned  in  v.  3. 

Y.  6,  7.  no?Jju  ^pouou  e')[ec  cannot,  according  to  the  usage  of 
the  language,  refer  to  the  age  of  the  man,  but  refers  to  the 
time  spent  in  a  certain  condition,  either  in  sickness  or  in  lying 
there.  Moved  with  compassion,  Christ  asks  him  whether  he 
wishes  to  be  healed,  a  question  designed  either  to  arouse  and 
thereby  fix  the  attention  of  the  sick  man,  perhaps  of  the  by- 
standers also,  or  designed  also  to  mediate  the  healing  efiicacy 


The  IIealinq  at  the  Pool  of  Bethesda.  151 

of  Jesus ;  cf.  Mark  x.  51.  Among  the  curiosities  of  inteq^rc- 
tation,  that  of  Dr.  Pauhis  deserves  mention,  which  supposes 
the  man  to  have  been  a  beggar  too  lazy  to  work,  to  whom 
Jesus  says:  Are  you  really  willing  to  be  cured? 

V.  8,  9.  The  miraculous  character  of  the  cure  is  made 
more  apparent  by  the  ability  of  the  cripple  at  once  to  carry  his 
couch  with  him.  In  order  to  make  the  reader  feel  more  viv- 
idly the  greatness  of  the  miracle,  the  result  is  related  by  the 
Evangelist  in  the  very  same  words  which  Jesus  had  employed. 
It  was  this  carrying  of  the  couch,  too,  which  furnished  the 
occasion  for  the  charge  of  a  breach  of  the  Sabbath. 

Against  the  internal  probability  of  the  whole  narrative,  Bauer 
has  urged  with  great  assurance  a  series  of  difficulties,  in  which 
he  had  been  preceded  by  Bretschneider,  in  his  Probabilia,  in 
fact  b}^  the  audacious  Woolston.  One  of  these  is  so  startling 
as  to  deserve  some  notice.  It  is  asked,  whether  it  is  credible 
that  no  one  should,  for  so  long  a  time,  have  exercised  compas- 
sion, and  put  the  man  into  the  water ;  whether,  in  fact,  the  man 
must  not  have  had  persons  to  carry  him  daily  to  the  place,  and 
who  might,  consequently,  have  helped  him  into  the  water  ?  If 
the  text  asserted  that  for  tliirty -eight  years  he  had  found  no  such 
helping  hand,  the  whole  matter  would  certainly  be  rendered 
incredible.  This  is  not  said  in  the  text,  however,  and  many 
circumstances  suggest  themselves  by  which  the  difficulty  is 
relieved,  ^q  are  not  told  how  long  the  sick  man  had  been  in 
the  habit  of  lying  near  the  pool,  and  whether  he  did  so  daily, 
nor  whether  the  fountain  gushed  up  daily,  or  only  after  long 
intervals;  it  is  not  necessary  to  suppose  that  he  was  always 
carried,  for  according  to  v.  7,  he  could  move  himself.  Was  this 
perhaps  a  place  where  those  who  went  to  the  temple  were  in 
the  habit  of  giving  alms,  so  that  for  this  reason  many  sick  per- 
sons staid  there?  &c. 

V.  10-13.  The  Gemara  forbids  healing  on  the  Sabbath, 
except  where  life  is  in  peril,  (Matt.  xii.  11, 12,)  much  more  the 
carrying  of  a  bed.  By  "  the  Jews  "  it  would  seem  (v.  15,  33,) 
we  are  to  understand  members  of  the  Sanhedrim,  those  who 
had  just  witnessed  the  healing  and  heard  the  words  of  Jesus. 
The  answer  of  the  sick  man  who  had  been  healed,  v.  11,  shows 
that  he  recognized  in  the  worker  of  the  miracle  a  prophet;  he 


152  Chap.  V.— v.  14-20. 

attaches  more  importance  to  his  word  than  to  that  of  the 
rulers.  In  the  cases  of  healing  narrated  in  the  synoptical 
Gospels,  Jesus  frequently  withdraws  from  the  multitude  or 
forbids  the  making  known  of  what  he  has  done.  Were  the 
Disciples  of  Jesus  perhaps  not  present,  so  that  the  man  healed 
could  obtain  no  account  from  them  in  regard  to  Christ's 
person,  or  was  it  that  Christ  withdrew  himself  so  quickly  from 
his  eyes  ? 

V.  14,  15.  As  the  man  who  had  been  healed  repairs  to  the 
temple,  we  may  conclude  that  his  soul  was  under  religious 
impulse ;  it  is  possible  that  the  warning  of  Jesus  had  in  view 
some  definite  moral  delinquency  of  the  man,  from  which  his 
disease  had  proceeded  as  a  natural  result,  (Luke  v.  20  ;)  as,  how- 
ever, all  sickness  and  all  evil  has  for  its  object  the  "  chastening" 
of  man,  the  warning  of  the  Saviour  can  be  explained  without 
that  assumption.  From  what  has  preceded,  it  is  to  be  inferred 
that  the  man  who  had  been  healed  did  not  make  mention  of 
Jesus'  name  to  the  authorities  with  a  bad  motive  ;  he  only 
desired  to  show  them  the  obedience  which  was  due  them, 
(Bengel,)  and  perhaps  indulged  the  hope  of  making  a  better 
impression  upon  them  (Euthymius,  Calvin,  Bucer,)  thereby. 

YiNDICATION    OF    JeSUS    IN    REGARD     TO     THE     CURE    ON     THE 

Sabbath.— V.  16-30. 

V.  16-18.  In  consequence  of  this,  the  members  of  the 
Sanhedrim  again  appear  upon  the  stage,  to  call  Jesus  to 
account.  The  observance  of  the  Sabbath  was  grounded  upon 
God's  resting  on  the  seventh  day,  by  which,  however,  was  only 
meant  that  God  ceased  to  create  any  thing  new.  "With  pro- 
found truth  the  Saviour  now  points  to  the  fact,  that  therein 
is  involved  no  cessation  of  activity,  (Psalm  cxlvii.  8,)  which 
daily,  and  consequently  on  the  Sabbath  too,  is  renewed.  As 
Christ,  elsewhere  in  John,  in  what  he  does  exhibits  himself  as 
the  mirror  of  the  Father,  so  he  does  here.  Although  in  the 
Old  Testament,  in  some  few  passages,  God  is  designated  as  the 
father  of  the  people,  it  was  an  unusual  thing  for  an  individual 
Israelite  to  employ  this  name;  wherever  Christ  uses  it,  lie 
alludes  to  a  special  relation  to  the  Father,  Luke  ii.  49,  Matt 


Vindication  of  Jesus.  153 

xviii.  35,  hence  the  charge  of  hhisphemy  which  the  Jews 
bring.     On  roroc,  ef.  Rom.  viii.  32. 

"V.  19,  20.  As  in  the  discourses  of  Christ  recorded  by  John, 
it  is  usual  with  our  Saviour  to  confirm  what  has  given  offense 
to  those  who  opposed  him,  and  then  to  state  it  still  more 
strongly,  (viii.  58,  x.  32,  scq.)  so  is  it  here.  Luther  says:  "An 
admirable  apology,  which  makes  the  matter  worse."  What 
he  affirms  of  himself,  v.  17,  in  a  single  respect,  in  v.  19  he 
maintains  of  himself  in  all  respects ;  confirms  it,  v.  20,  by  the 
thought  that  the  bond  of  love  between  the  Father  and  Son  is 
the  ground  of  the  continued  communication,  and  strengthens  it 
by  the  prospect  that  this  connection  with  the  Father  would  be 
made  manifest  by  yet  higher  operations  than  the  healing  which 
just  occurred,  (Zwingle.)  It  is  to  be  observed  here  (see  i.  51, 
iii.  13,)  how  much  the  thought  is  accommodated  to  the  sphere 
of  the  image,  the  sphere  of  the  figure.  In  the  words,  "of 
himself,"  De  Wette  finds  "an  obscure,  partial  reference  to 
the  human  in  the  incarnate  Logos,  for  inasmuch  as  the  Son 
unites  in  himself  divinity  and  humanity,  his  bent  and  will  are 
also  divine,  and  the  antithesis  'of  himself  with  God,  cannot 
take  place."  But  as  the  term  "  Son  "  designates  the  human 
individual  absolutely  united  with  God,  so  is  there  a  possibility, 
though  purely  an  abstract  one,  that  this  individual  will  may  de- 
tach itself  from  its  basis  and  oppose  it;  comp.  vii.  17.  The  "  can 
do  nothing"  is  a  moral  inability  based  in  the  will  of  the  Son. 
Bengel :  hoc  glorioe  est,  non  imperfectionis,  "  this  is  a  feature 
of  glory,  not  of  imperfection."  Touzcou,  "those,"  v.  20,  refers 
to  the  cure  which  Christ  had  just  wrought  under  the  impulse 
and  after  the  likeness  of  the  Father.  It  may  be  doubted  (see 
Beza,)  whether  7ua  is  not  merely  ccbatic.  Rev.  xiii.  3,  (see 
Tholuck  on  Romans  iii.  19,)  yet  certainly  its  use  as  telic  can 
also  be  justified. 

From  the  separate  manifestations  of  miraculous  power,  the 
discourse  leads  to  the  great  and  peculiar  work  of  Christ,  the 
quickening  anew  of  man,  with  which  the  judgment  is  to  be 
regarded  as  connected,  (v.  21-23.)  This  internal  requickening, 
which  is  the  communication  of  an  eternal  life,  has  already 
commenced,  (v.  24-27.)  Its  full  realization  will  accompany 
the  resurrection  and  the  final  judgrhent  attending  it,  (v.  28, 


154  Chap.  V.— v.  20-25. 

29.)^  Either  because  it  was  thought  incongruous  that  two 
operations  so  diverse  as  bodily  and  spiritual  quickening,  should 
be  immediately  connected  with  one  another,  or  because  no 
meaning  could  be  derived  from  the  proposition  in  regard  to 
Christ  as  the  raiser  of  the  dead,  the  majority  have  interpreted 
the  whole  passage  of  the  resurrection  of  the  body  only,  (Beza, 
Bucer,  Storr,  Schott,  KauiFer,  de  biblica  ^o)7^7  auouloo  notione, 
Dresd.  1838,)^  or  only  of  the  spiritual  moral  resurrection, 
(Eckermann,  Ammon,  Eichhorn  ;f  on  the  other  hand,  the  best 
expositors,  Llicke,  Neauder,  Olshausen,  De  "Wette,  have  re- 
turned to  the  view  of  Augustine,  Calvin,  Hunnius  and  Calovius, 
that  both  references  are  to  be  retained.  Olshausen  has,  how- 
ever, on  this  point,  a  view  peculiar  to  himself,  inasmuch  as  he 
refers  verse  25  to  the  so-called  resurrection  of  the  righteous, 
to  the  raisino:  of  the  bodies  of  those  who  have  heard  the  word 
of  God  and  attained  to  regeneration,  so  that  not  until  v.  28, 
29,  does  the  discourse  turn  upon  the  general  resurrection. — Not 
merely  in  this  passage,  but  in  Paul  also,  surprise  may  be  excited 
by  the  close  connection  and  reciprocal  dependence  in  which  the 
bodily  and  the  spiritual  resurrection  are  placed.  The  question 
hinges  upon  the  idea  which  we  form  of  the  resurrection  of  the 
body;  were  it  a  purel}^  outward  occurrence  in  the  way  in  which 
the  words  of  v.  28  depict  it,  the  bond  of  union  between  the 
spiritual  and  the  physical  resurrection  could  here  be  sought 
only  in  the  creative  omnipotence ;  but  starting  from  the  declara- 
tion, Rom.  viii.  10,  11,  which  on  this  point  is  of  such  weight, 
the  new  investiture  Avith  the  body  is  to  be  regarded  as  the 
ultimate  point  of  the  working  of  the  principle  of  redemption. 
As  the  soul  in  the  formation  of  the  embryo  is  the  "prius"  of 
it  and  its  shaping  principle,  thus  the  spirit  of  man  filled  by 

1  In  the  Freiburger  Zeitschr.  fur  Theologie,  2  B.  2  H.  there  is  a  treatise,  in 
its  essential  features  worthy  of  commendation,  directed  more  immediately  against 
Gfrbrer,  by  Maier,  entitled:  "Exegetico-dogmatic  development  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment conceptions  ^ut},  dvuaraaic,  npiaic-"  In  regard  to  the  biblical  doctrine  of  the 
^u))j,  the  treatise  of  Man:  "on  death  the  wages  of  sin,"  1841,  is  worthy  of  special 
note,  particularly  the  second  part,  which  treats  of  life. 

*  The  words  "  and  now  is,"  this  view  supposes  to  be  uttered  with  reference  to 
Lazarus,  &c.     See  the  refutation  in  Frommann,  1.  c.  p.  G39,  and  Liicke,  8d  ed. 

'  On  the  opposite  side,  cf.  Suskind  "on  the  expressions  of  Jesus,  in  which  he 
attributes  to  himself  the  resurrection  of  the  dead,"  in  the  Magazin  fur  Dogm.  u. 
Moral  St.  10. 


Vindication  of  Jksus.  155 

Clirist  forms  its  new  externality.  If  this  view  be  correct,  and  this 
is  no  place  to  argue  it,  the  transition  from  the  spiritual  to  the 
physical  resurrection,  and  such  passages,  also,  as  vi.  39,  44,  arc 
still  more  satisfactorily  explained.  It  is  true  it  must  then  be 
conceded,  that  in  vss.  28,  29  the  figurative  character  i)rcdomi- 
nates  in  the  very  strongest  manner.  Yet  it  does  not  answer 
altogether  to  take  the  literal  meaning,  since  a  liearing  of  the 
voice  of  the  Son  of  man  is  something  which  cannot,  in  the 
proper  sense,  be  ascribed  to  the  dust  which  is  lying  in  the 
graves ;  cf.  on  v.  20. 

V.  21-23  express  also,  in  general,  the  thought,  that  in 
Christ  is  the  quickening  principle,  the  negative  side  of  which  is 
designated  by  the  "raiseth  up,"  the  positive  by  the  "  quicken- 
eth."  "Whom  he  will"  gives  prominence  to  the  perfection 
of  the  power,  which,  however,  in  the  Son  as  in  the  Father,  is 
rational  and  conformed  to  law,  so  that  it  would  be  but  a  fur- 
ther explication  of  the  sense  to  interpret:  "and  this  takes 
place  according  to  definite  laws."  This  now  finds  its  elucida- 
tion in  what  immediately  follows,  in  regard  to  "the  judgment," 
for  a  judgment  without  a  rational  rule  would  be  inconceivable ; 
it  is,  however,  here  and  in  v.  27,  regarded  as  the  higher  thing 
in  its  relation  to  the  resurrection,  for  the  quickening  is  but  one 
of  the  acts  embraced  under  the  judicial  functions.  And  when 
it  is  denied  that  the  Father  judges,  it  is  done  in  the  same  way 
in  which,  v.  19  and  vii.  17,  it  is  denied  that  the  Son  can  do  any 
thing  of  himself — to  wit :  in  isolation  from  the  Father,  (cf.  v. 
30.)  It  imports  that  the  entire  activity  of  God  for  the  human 
race  reveals  itself  alone  through  the  mediation  of  the  Son. 
From  such  a  unity  of  power  must  result  an  equal  recognition 
of  the  Father  and  of  the  Son  on  the  part  of  men.  What  is 
withheld  from  the  Son,  is  therewith  withheld  from  the  Father 
also,  cf.  John  xiv.  G,  1  John  ii.  23.  The  older  expositors 
found  a  difficulty  in  the  designation,  "which  hath  sent  him," 
as  if  in  this  connection  it  expressed  too  little;  cf.  however, 
what  is  said  on  ch.  iii.  34. 

V.  24,  25.  After  a  repetition  of  the  thought,  (iv.  14,  iii.  36,) 
that  by  means  of  faith  the  principle  of  a  life  is  received,  which 
cannot  be  interrupted  by  death,  with  a  solemn  asseveration  the 
assurance  is  given,  that  in  this  sense  the  new  quickening  lu\a 


15G  Chap.  V.— v.  26,  27. 

begun.  The  "  condemnation  "  is  here,  as  in  v.  29,  the  antithe- 
sis to  the  true  life,  ex  notione  adjuncta,  consequently  xpivzcv  is 
equivalent  ■  to  xaraxpivecv.  That  immediately  after  death  the 
believer  participates  in  the  absolute  blessedness,  (of  heaven,) 
cannot  therefore  be  deduced  from  these  words,  but  only  this, 
that  he  is  sure  of  "everlasting  life."  The  older  expositors 
observe  that  the  "passing  unto  life  "  is  only  a  present  thing  to 
faith,  (Zvvingle,  Beza,  Maldonatus ;)  the  more  recent,  as  Calvin 
had  already  done,  suppose  that  it  already  has  begun  in  reality, 
(Heb.  vi.  5 ;)  the  latter  view  certainly  is  found  in  1  John  iii. 
14,  but  the  former  is  also  correct,  insomuch  as  the  absolute 
realization  of  "  everlasting  life  "  pertains  to  the  world  to  come, 
(see  on  iii.  36;)  as  too,  the  "coming  into  condemnation"  is  also 
regarded  as  future.  "  The  voice,"  in  v.  25,  is  certainly  not 
equivalent  to  "my  word,"  in  v.  24 ;  it  is  the  resurrection  call  as 
in  V.  28,  but  this  latter  can  also  be  regarded  as  spiritual.  Those 
are  spoken  of  who  by  inward  sympathy  prove  themselves 
Jesus'  "own  sheep,"  (x.  3,  14.) 

V.  26.  As  in  xi.  25,  xiv.  6,  vi.  57,  xiv.  19,  Christ  designates 
his  own  person  as  the  bearer  of  life.  The  first  question  to  be 
asked  is,  whether  the  Father  and  Son  are  equal  as  regards  the 
possession  of  life  or  as  regards  the  mode  of  its  causation.  As 
"having  anything  in  ones  self"  usually  precludes  the  causality 
of  another,  the  proposition  is  almost  universally  taken  in  the 
latter  sense,  (Euthymius,  Tv/^yd^ei,  "he  is  the  fountain;"  Bucer, 
vitam  a  nullo  alio  pendeutem,  "a  life  dependent  on  no  other 
person;")  and  the  only  difference  in  the  views  is  as  to  whether 
the  words  refer  to  the  Son  as  Logos,  (i.  4,)  (Augustine,  Am- 
brose,) or  in  his  human  nature,  (Athanasius,  Cyrill,  Calvin, 
Beza,  Lampe.)  The  latter  question  must  be  decided  in  favor 
of  the  last  named  view,  or  at  least  in  contiict  with  the  opposite 
view,  for  the  term  "Son"  never  designates  the  Logos  in  the 
abstract,  (see  on  i.  18.)  And  as  regards  the  meaning  of  the 
phrase:  "to  have  life  in  himself,"  the  interpretation :  "he  is 
himself  the  principle  of  life,"  is  favored  not  so  much  by  ch.  x. 
18,  to  which  Lampe  refers,  as  by  the  analogies  of  iv.  14,  vii. 
38,  where  it  is  said  of  believers  even,  that  the  life  received 
from  Christ  becomes  an  independent  principle  in  them.  This 
tliought,  too,  suits  the  connection,  for  a  prerogative  of  the  Son 


Vindication  of  Jesus.  157 

is  to  be  expressed,  which  is  stated  j-et  more  strongly  in  v.  27. 
Thus  the  meaning  is  presented:  "The  Son  is  able  to  con. 
summate  this  quickening  process,  inasmuch  as  he,  though 
conditioned  by  the  absolute  causality  of  the  Father,  is  the 
self-dependent  principle  of  a  creative-spiritual  life."  Neither, 
however,  is  the  other  interpretation  to  be  rejected,  according 
to  which  Christ  ascribes  to  himself  a  possession  of  life  co- 
extensive with  that  of  the  Father.  This  view  is  favored  by 
the  usao;e  of  the  Evan2:elist,  in  which  iu  kaoziTj  is  connected 
with  £;f£;v  to  indicate  an  immanent  spiritual  possession,  ch.  v. 
42,  vi.  53,  1  John  iii.  15,  v.  18.  Cf.  the  Dissertation  by 
Marck  in  Exercitationes  Scripturarum  ad  loca  N.  T.  n.  xii. 

V.  27.  Here,  as  in  v.  22,  the  power  to  execute  "judgment" 
is  exhibited  as  the  higher  idea,  under  which  falls  also  the  im- 
partation  of  life.  The  clause  with  ou,  in  which  the  reason  is 
stated,  deserves  consideration.  It  is  first  of  all  to  be  observed, 
that  the  omission  of  the  article  before  ufoc  du&pcoTzou,  decides 
nothing  as  to  its  meaning,  as  that  term,  like  x'jpco::  and  u;oc  {?£oD, 
has  become  a  fixed  designation ;  the  article  is  also  omitted 
before  uco^  ^ao~j,  Matt.  xiv.  33,  xxvii.  43,  Luke  i.  35,  John  xix.  7. 
This  causal  connection  will  be  differently  understood,  as  differ- 
ent views  are  held  as  to  the  meaning  of  woe  d.  as  a  predicate  of 
Christ,  (see  on  i.  52.)  If  we  hold  that  it  means  "Messiah,"  we 
interpret  thus:  "because  the  judgment  is  an  essential  part  of  the 
Messiah's  office,"  as  also  it  is  ascribed  in  that  case  to  the  Messiah, 
Dan.  vii.  12, 13,  (Wolf,  Liicke,  Kuinol,)  whilst  Grotius,  Lampe, 
give  prominence  to  the  idea  "because  he  humbled  himself  to 
become  incarnate,"  in  accordance  with  Philip,  ii.  9.  As  in 
Hebrews  ii.  17,  18,  the  necessity  of  having  a  merciful  high- 
priest  is  assigned  as  the  reason  for  the  incarnation,  several 
have  supposed  that  here  also,  wdiere  the  Judge  is  spoken  of,  we 
are  to  interpret  in  accordance  with  that  passage :  "  because  the 
incarnate  Messiah  will  judge  men  most  mildly,"  (Wetstein, 
Scholten,)  —  and  this  is  the  view  even  of  such  expositors  as 
explain  uroc  dudf).  of  the  ideal  man,  (Olshausen,  8d  ed.,  Neander.) 
This  would  certainly  be  then  a  strong  accommodation,  of  the 
same  kind  as  the  childlike  artless  expressions  in  ch.  xiv.  16, 
which  against  such  opposers  would  be  so  little  in  place  that  we 
might  rather  with  Zwingle  say:  "He  gives  prominence  to  his 

15 


158  Chap.  Y.— v.  28-32. 

humanity,  that  they  might  he  reminded  that  he  who  was  then 
speaking  with  them  would  one  day  be  their  judge."  The 
views  just  mentioned  (with  the  exception  of  the  very  first,)  all 
presuppose  that  directly  or  indirectly  there  lies  in  the  term  a 
reference  to  the  incarnation.  "We  have  already,  on  i.  52,  ex- 
pressed our  concurrence  in  this  view,  and  would  ^vith  De  Wette, 
with  a  reference  to  v.  22,  interpret:  "because  the  entire  activity 
of  the  Father  is  mediated  through  the  incarnate  Logos." 

V.  28,  29.  A  looking  forth  into  the  future  still  further,  in 
which  the  words  "  and  now  is  "  are  not  repeated.  The  res- 
toration of  life  to  the  body  is  one  day  to  take  place,  in  virtue 
of  the  immanent  principle  of  the  new  life  which  proceeds  from 
Christ ;  this  thought  is  expressed  in  the  form  of  an  image  in 
prevalent  use,  a  form  which  is  the  less  to  be  urged,  since  else- 
where another  mode  of  presenting  the  same  idea  is  employed, 
1  Cor.  XV.  52,  53,  2  Cor.  v.  4.  The  image  which  "  the  voice  " 
conveys,  is  expressed  in  a  manner  yet  more  marked  by  the 
"trumpet,"  1  Cor.  xv.  52,  which  sounds  for  the  decampment — 
the  intimation,  consequently,  of  a  grand  catastrophe.  The 
deciding  principle  is  not  faith,  as  might  be  anticipated,  but 
works,  in  the  same  way,  however,  as  in  Matt.  xxv.  35.  From 
the  doctrinal  point  of  view,  what  Bucer  says  is  correct: 
Quisque,  ut  est,  ita  et  operatur,  opera  de  animo  testantur,  ("  as 
a  man  is,  so  he  acts,  works  are  the  witness  of  the  soul.") 
Viewed,  however,  from  the  position  of  historical  exegesis,  it 
must  be  added,  that  the  eschatology  especially  is  presented  by 
our  Kedeemer  himself  more  after  the  Jewish  mode  of  contem- 
plating it,  (Luke  xvi.)  and  that  the  general  idea  of  future  retri- 
bution is  expressed  under  various  images,  which  the  Apostles 
then  explain  in  a  concrete  manner.  The  genitives  ^co7j(:  and 
xpiaeco^  express  what  is  closely  connected  with  the  d.vaazaaiq,  and 
is  the  sequel  of  it.  K  in  C,i»'q  there  lay  simply  the  idea  of  dura- 
tion, the  force  of  -/.piaic.  would  be  that  of  annihilation ;  as,  how- 
ever, Z.iU'Q  ex  adjuncto^  designates  that  which  corresponds  with 
the  true  idea  of  life,  and  consequently,  happy  life,  (the  true  life  on 
its  subjective  side,  as  it  enters  into  self  consciousness,)  the  idea 

1  When  Mau,  1.  c.  saj'S,  that  in  using  Z,ufi  aiuvioc,  the  vita  beata  is  so  far  from 
being  a  notio  secundaria,  that  on  the  contrary,  the  idea  of  life  would  be  but  an 
imperfect  one  without  this  notio,  he  is  correct  as  regards  the  New  Testament  idea  of 


Unbelief  of  the  Jews  reproved.  159 

of  the  xpiac::  is  that  of  misery,  2  Maecab.  vii.  9,  auovcoQ  dva^Uoan^ 
{^cor^^,  "everlasting  (resurrection  of)  life,"  and  in  the  same 
chapter,  v.  14,  di^da-aac^  erc  C"^'?^>  "resurrection  to  life."  As 
only  at  this  dvdavaacz  a  higher  perfection  is  attained,  it  is 
called  by  way  of  preeminence  y;  di^da-aa::;,  [the  resurrection,)  and 
in  Philip,  iii.  10,  11,  cf.  Luke  xiv.  14,  appears  as  something 
given  by  divine  mere}'.  There  is  no  other  passage  except  Acts 
xxiv.  15,  in  which  the  "resurrection"  of  the  "unjust"  is 
spoken  of;  cf.  Tholuck,  Komment.  zu  Hebr.  vi.  2.  (Comment. 
on  Ep.  to  Hebrews,  transl.  by  J.  Hamilton,  vol.  i,  p.  246.)  The 
"  unjust  "  are  indeed  already  in  this  world  devoid  of  the  "  life," 
but  it  is  brought  to  perception  only  in  a  negative  way;  the 
judgment  consists  in  the  perception  of  this  want,  as  an  antith- 
eses to  that  which  should  be.  Herein,  first  of  all,  is  grounded 
the  distinction  between  the  "judgment "  in  this  world,  and 
that  in  the  world  to  come ;  with  the  internal  discordance  will 
then  also  harmonize  the  external. 

V.  30.  The  aim  of  the  discourse  to  this  point  has  been  to 
give  prominence  to  the  superhuman  powers  of  the  Son,  and  as 
Christ  throughout  John,  gives  prominence  to  the  thought,  that 
in  all  that  he  does  the  Father  is  the  ultimate  cause,  that  conse- 
quently, whatever  he  affirms  of  himself  serves  only  to  glorify 
the  Father,  so  here  he  returns  to  the  thought  that  even  in 
those  greatest  works  the  Father  is  the  ultimate  cause. 

The  Unbelief  of  the  Jews  reproved. — v.  31-47. 

V.  31,  32.  Although  the  following  discourse  treats  of  a 
different  subject,  yet  a  transition  is  observable.  It  lies  in  v. 
30,  in  his  effort  to  repudiate  all  self-glorification  ;  with  this 
design  our  Lord  places  himself  on  the  same  point  of  view  as 
that  of  his  opposers,  who  must  have  been  disposed  to  apply  the 
principle  of  the  civil  law  to  the  testimony  of  the  religious  self- 
consciousness.  In  a  happy  accommodation  to  this  notion,  (which 
is,  however,  something  more  than  mere  accommodation,  see  for 
example  ch.  xvi.  32,)  he  shows  that  in  a  certain  measure  he  is 
prepared  to  satisfy  this  demand,  although  on  the  other  side, 
when  his  opposers  raise  the  objection  in  their  own  person,  he 
rejects  it  as  invalid,  (viii.  14;)  nevertheless,  in  that  very  passage 


ICO  Chap.  Y.  —  v.  C3-38. 

he  afterward  condescends  to  the  same  accommodation,  (viii.  16, 
18.)  Ah'cady  in  accordance  with  the  analogy  of  the  passage- 
just  quoted,  the  inclination  would  be  felt  to  understand  by  the 
"  other  witness,"  the  Father,  (Cyrill,  Augustine,  Bengel.)  Chry- 
sostom  and  De  Wette  prefer,  however,  here  also  to  understand 
the  allusion  as  made  to  the  Baptist;  the  latter  writer  urging 
this  reason,  that  otherwise  the  train  of  thought  would  be  in- 
terrupted by  the  testimony  of  the  Baptist,  when  on  the  con- 
trary we  would  anticipate  an  advance  from  the  lower  to  the 
higher;  the  words  too,  "and  I  know,  &c."  applied  to  the 
Father,  would  be  insipid.  On  the  other  hand,  this  powerful 
expression  of  self-witness,  (in  ch.  viii.)  resembling  the  one  in 
vii.  29,  argues  for  the  reference  to  the  Father,  (iii.  11.)  With 
entire  propriety  could  Christ  still  further  increase  the  weight 
of  this  testimony  of  the  Father,  by  a  juxtaposition  of  it  with 
that  of  the  Baptist. 

V.  33-35.  They  had  themselves  desired  a  testimony,  for  they 
had  taken  the  Baptist  for  the  Messiah,  and  on  that  account 
interrogated  him  ;  he  had  only  borne  a  witness  of  the  truth  in 
favor  of  the  truth,  (dative  commodi.)  The  Saviour  gives  him- 
self a  place  above  all  prophets,  inasmuch  as  he  declines  human 
testimony  ;  Bengel :  Ego,  quicquid  sum,  id  sum  citra  humance 
auctoritatis  beneficium,  "  whatever  I  may  be,  I  am  such  without 
the  aid  of  human  authority."  As,  however,  there  was  a  divine 
testimony  in  that  of  the  Baptist,  Olshausen  thinks  that  Christ 
declines  that  testimony  only  so  far  as  it  is  to  be  considered 
human.  lie  naturally  declines  it  in  that  sense  in  which  it  had 
been  desired  by  the  Jews  ;  they  had  sent  to  John  as  to  a 
prophet.  Christ,  nevertheless,  for  the  benefit  of  the  people, 
wished  to  mention  this  testimony.  That  this  testimony  ac- 
tually might  have  produced  great  blessings,  the  words  that 
follow  attest. — "He  was"  implies  that  the  Baptist  had  already 
left  the  stage.  The  article  before  Xo^vot:,  according  to  Bengel, 
has  reference  to  Ecclesiasticus  xlviii.  1,  where  it  is  said  of  Eli- 
jah, with  whose  character  the  appearing  of  John  corresponded: 
"  Then  stood  up  Elias  the  prophet  as  fire,  and  his  word  burned 
like  a  lamp."  But  the  expression  in  that  passage  does  not 
correspond  accurately  enough  with  the  one  in  this,  nor  was  it 
sufficiently  known  to  justify  us  in  expecting  any  such  reference 


Unbelief  of  the  Jews  reproved.  ICl 

to  it.  Liickc,  liowever,  starts  the  question :  "  Whether  from 
similar  descriptious  of  Elias,  a  characteristic  expression  like 
the  one  hefore  us  may  not  have  been  formed  with  application 
to  John,  to  which  Christ  here  refers?"  De  Wette,  however, 
interprets  it:  "He  was  the  burning  light,  that  light,  namely, 
which  should  have  guided  you  in  the  way."  The  "burning" 
refers  not  to  the  ardent  zeal,  but  designates  that  condition  of 
ignition  whose  result  is  the  "  shining,"  (Luke  xii.  35.)  dSXstv, 
not  merely  "ye  were  willing,"  but  "it  pleased  you,"  (Mark  ix. 
13,  xii.  38.)  The  emphasis  lies  not  merely  on  "for  a  season," 
but  also  on  "to  rejoice."  The  preacher  of  repentance  should 
have  aroused  earnest  resolutions;  but  men  sought  him  from 
mere  curiosity,  (Matt.  xi.  7.)  It  is  a  question  to  what  the 
words  "for  a  season"  refer;  we  suppose  it  to  allude  to  the 
fact,  that  the  throng  about  John  gradually  diminished,  espe- 
cially after  he  had  directed  attention  to  Jesus ;  cf.  Mark  ix.  13. 
V.  36-38.  The  discourse  returns  to  what  had  been  said  in  v. 
32.  In  the  comparative  fiu^^^io  rob  ' Icodwoo,  "greater  than — of 
John,"  is  a  breviloquence  for  rmv  epycov  zou  '/.  "the  works  of 
John,"  as  is  common  in  Greek  and  Hebrew,  (Matt.  v.  20.)  Chap. 
X.  25,  likewise  designates  the  "works"  of  Christ  as  the  "wit- 
ness "  of  the  Father.  Do  the  "  works"  embrace  the  entire  sphere 
of  the  Messiah's  activity,  and  consequently  comprehend  his 
teaching  and  his  life  so  as  to  correspond  to  the  collective  rb 
ipyou,  xvii.  4?  (Stark  in  the  first  Excursus  to  his  Paraphr.  et 
Commentar.  in  Evang.  lohan.  chap.  13-17,  Jena,  1819 ;  Schott 
Opuscul.  i.  p.  216,  Liicke,  De  Wette.)  Or  are  only  the  miracles 
meant,  as  also  Olshausen  recently,  appealing  to  x.  25,  xxxii. 
38,  xiv.  11,  maintains  ?  The  20th  verse  already  establishes  the 
first  view,  as  does  xiv.  11.  The  whole  work  of  Christ  is  accord- 
ingly, to  the  soul  that  is  illumined,  a  witness  that  he  is  from 
God.  In  V.  20  he  has  declared  that  the  greatest  works  are  yet 
to  come,  yet  there  is  in  the  present  already  a  testimony.  The 
iyo)  is  not  emphatic,  and  is  wanting  in  Cod.  A  B  D  L. — 
Great  difficulty  is  connected  with  the  decision  of  the  question, 
whether  the  witness  of  the  Father,  v.  37,  is  different  from  that 
furnished  in  the  works,  and  how  many  witnesses  consequently 
are  mentioned  altogether.  Luther  and  Chemnitz  designate  as 
the  first  witness,  v.  35,  the  Baptist ;  as  the  second,  v.  36,  the 

15* 


162  Chap.  V.— v.  3G-40. 

works ;  as  the  third,  v.  39,  the  Scriptures ;  as  the  fourth,  v.  45, 
Moses.  Augustine,  Hilary,  Maldonatus,  Grotius,  acknowledge 
only  a  two-fold  witness,  the  one  in  the  works,  the  other  in  the 
Scriptures.  We  first  ask,  whether  the  witness,  v.  37,  is  to  be 
regarded  as  distinct  from  that  in  the  works  ?  To  this  is  opposed, 
that  the  sentence  then  seems  superfluous,  and  by  the  words, 
"which  the  Father  hath  given  me,"  the  very  same  thought  has 
been  sufficiently  expressed,  that  moreover  the  auroc  appears  to 
designate  a  direct  witness  in  distinction  from  the  ipya ;  perhaps, 
too,  it  is  in  point  to  direct  attention  to  the  perfect  tense 
lxt[iapTuprjxzv,  while  previously  fiapzuptl  had  been  used.  But  in 
what,  then,  consists  this  direct  testimony  ?  According  to  Cyrill, 
Theophylact,  Calvin,  Cocceius,  it  is  the  witness  of  the  prophets, 
so  that  V.  39  is  a  further  expansion  of  the  thought,  and  the  inter- 
mediate words,  according  to  Calvin,  are  to  be  taken  thus :  "  Ye 
are  blind  to  all  the  divine  forms  of  revelation,  and  have  not 
received  his  word  in  you."  According  to  Chrysostom,  Lampe, 
Bengel,  the  allusion  is  to  the  direct  testimony  of  God  at  the 
baptism  and  transfiguration  of  Jesus:  "Ye  have  heard  and 
seen  voices  and  shapes  in  which  the  Father  made  himself 
known  to  you,  and  have  not  considered,  nor  have  ye  at  all  the 
word  of  Scripture  in  your  heart."  Liicke  (3d  ed.)  and  De 
Wette  regard  the  word  of  God  as  the  direct  testimony.  "For 
none  of  the  modes  of  divine  revelation  have  ye  the  tone  of 
mind,  although  in  my  work  ye  might,  as  it  were,  hear  God  and 
see  him,  (Liicke  compares  xiv.  9,)  and  ye  have  not  appropriated 
the  direct  witness  of  God  in  his  word."  Yet  De  "Wette  hesi- 
tates very  much  whether  the  preference  is  not  to  be  given  to 
the  view  of  Olshausen,  which  is,  that  the  witness  is  not  that  of 
Scripture,  but  of  the  direct  operation  of  the  Spirit  of  God  in 
man,  (vi.  45,  1  John  i.  10.)  "  Neither  your  internal  ear,  nor 
your  internal  eye  is  opened  to  God ;  ye  can  have  no  internal 
theophanies,  as  the  prophets  had,  neither  have  you  in  you,  in 
an  internal  manner,  that  light  of  God  which  illumines  all 
men."  First  of  all,  we  must  declare  ourselves  as  opposed  to 
the  view  that  the  voice  and  form  of  God  at  Christ's  baptism 
are  meant.  The  expression  £?(5oc  ahzob  would  be  inappropri- 
ate ;  it  is,  on  the  whole,  a  matter  of  doubt  whether  spectators 
were  present  at  the  baptism ;  the  TtcoTiore  would,  on  that  view, 


LTnbklief  of  the  Jews  reproved.  163 

bo  used  without  any  motive.  But  in  addition,  we  cannot  bring 
ourselves  to  view  (pco'^rj  and  sldo^  in  the  way  assigned  as  a  des- 
ignation (Crell  says  "  proverbial,")  of  internal  revelation ;  we 
believe  that  then  neither  the  perfects  nor  the  Trdjjtoze  would 
have  been  used ;  cf  the  perf  in  iii.  13,  Rom.  ix.  19.  We  must 
therefore  take  "voice"  and  "shape"  as  the  designation  of  sen- 
sible revelations  of  God,  as  Neander:  "It  is  an  unheard  of 
thing,  that  the  voice  of  God  should  be  sensibly  perceived,  or 
his  shape  sensibly  seen."  That  the  fleshly  mind  of  the  Jews 
actually  longed  for  this  sort  of  revelation,  is  evident  from  John 
xiv.  8  ;  the  Saviour  does  not  here  mean  to  deny  the  theophanies, 
but  simply  to  show  what  they  really  are — manifestations, 
which  are  not  coincident  with  the  reality.  For  the  reasons 
assigned,  we  cannot,  however,  agree  with  Neander,  when  by 
the  witness  of  the  Father  he  understands  that  which  is  given 
in  the  tvorks,  (Leben  Jesu,  3d  ed.  p.  440.  4th  ed.  Transl.  by 
M'Clintock  and  Blumenthal,  p.  221,)  but  we  follow  those  inter- 
preters who  regard  it  as  the  testimony  given  in  the  divine  word, 
yet  so,  however,  that  in  accordance  with  the  view  peculiar  to 
John's  Gospel,  it  is  regarded  as  a  thing  which  has  already 
passed  over  into  suhjectivity,  as  1  John  i.  10  (cf.  with  v.  8,) 
indisputably  shows.  We  accordingly  paraphrase  the  passage 
thus:  "But  the  Father  has  also  given  a  direct  witness  in 
regard  to  me.  Think  not  in  this  of  palpable  testimon}^,  such 
is  not  furnished,  and  ye  have  never  received  such,  neither  have 
ye  embraced  his  word  in  your  heart,  otherwise  ye  must  have  felt 
yourselv^es  impelled  to  faith  in  him  whom  he  has  sent."  It  is 
true  that  on  this  supposition  the  syntactical  construction  does 
not  correspond  with  precision  to  the  thought,  for  we  would 
expect  Tov  ds  Xofov  aitrou  duuaade  e)[^iu  iu  u/juv,  but  syntactical 
defects  of  this  kind  are  frequent  in  John,  thus,  (v.  43,)  vii.  18, 
viii.  28,  xiv.  10,  xvi.  10,  1  John  i.  6,  7 ;  especially  is  xvi.  10  to 
be  compared. 

V.  39,  40.  'EpeupuTs,  according  to  Cyrill,  Erasmus,  Beza, 
and  most  intei-preters,  is  in  the  indicative ;  according  to  Chry- 
sostom,  Augustine,  Calvin,  in  the  imperative.  A  positive 
decision  for  either  view  cannot  be  derived  from  the  words; 
either  interpretation  is  consistent  with  the  sense  we  give ;  but 
knt'jvilv  in  the  indicative  means  "  to  indulge  in  subtle  inquiries, 


164  Chap.  V.— v.  41-47. 

to  analyze  by  the  letter,"  (according  to  Josephus,  De  Bello 
Judaic,  ii.  chap.  viii.  §  14,  Antiq.  xvii.  2,  4,  the  Pharisees  boasted 
fizza  dxfjc^eca^  i^/^ysca&ac  to.  vofxc/xa,  "  of  the  exact  skill  they  had 
in  interpreting  the  law,"  but  how  za-eivoj^  (humbly)  they  pro- 
ceeded in  it,  we  may  gather  from  the  keen  reproach  of  Justin 
Martyr,  Dial.  c.  Try.  who  says,  they  searched  out  trifles,  to.  de 
/2SYd?M  y.ai  aha.  f^-qz-qiiaza  fx-jnoze  zolixcbai  Ikyziv  fXQoh  iqrjecad^ac^ 
"  but  they  neither  dared  to  speak  of  nor  to  investigate  great 
and  important  questions.")  Christ  says,  8oxs7zs,  "ye  think," 
because  the  sense  in  which  they  supposed  they  possessed  eter- 
nal life  in  the  Scriptures,  was  a  perverted  one ;  they  strove  after 
a  dead  wisdom  of  the  letter,  cf.  Eomans  ii.  18-21,  and  in  the 
Talmud.  Tr.  Pirke  Aboth :  nnin  n^i  iV  n^ip  N3n  vhyy  ".n  iS  nj.ip. 
"  He  possesses  eternal  life  who  comes  to  the  possession  of  the 
words  of  the  law."  Compare  also,  "in  whom  ye  trust,"  v.  45. 
If  our  views  be  correct,  that  the  word  of  God,  v.  38,  is  to  be 
regarded  as  that  which  has  passed  over  into  the  subjectivity,  it 
follows  that  by  the  witness  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  we  are  to 
understand  not  merely  detached  prophecies,  but  the  whole  spirit 
of  the  Old  Testament,  which  passing  over  into  the  individual 
must  beget  a  longing  after  Christ.  That  Christ  reproves  their 
want  of  solicitude  in  regard  to  religion,  is  shown  by  the  words, 
"that  ye  might  have  life."  With  this  corresponds  the  charge 
in  v.  42,  that  they  were  destitute  of  the  love  of  God,  so  too, 
vii.  17.  The  xac  in  v.  40  is  both  adversative  and  copulative, 
"and  yet." 

Y.  41-44.  They  had  been  reproached  because  they  had  not 
the  word  of  God  living  within  them ;  this  is  expressed  in  other 
words,  when  it  is  denied  that  they  have  love  to  God.  It  is 
also,  however,  made  conspicuous  in  their  selfish  ambition,  in 
which  especially  their  alienation  from  God  displayed  itself. 
The  older  Commentators  lose  here  the  thread  of  the  closer  con- 
nection of  ideas.  "We  would  state  it  thus :  "  The  real  ground 
of  your  not  coming  to  me  is,  that  you  do  not  understand  my 
appearing.  I  am  free  from  all  selfishness,  but  I  perceive  of  you 
that  ye  have  no  such  love  of  God  in  you.  As  only  like  is 
drawn  by  like,  ye  have  not  received  me ;  when,  on  the  contrary, 
others  come  in  their  own  interest,  ye  will  receive  them. 
Where  there  is  a  selfish  striving  after  personal  honor,  and  not 


Unbelief  of  the  Jews  reproved.  165 

the  pure  love  of  God,  fiiith  is  impossible."  A  similar  train  of 
thought  is  fouud  in  vii.  16-19.  Ao^a  in  v.  41-44,  vii.  18,  viii. 
60,  Brctschncider  translates  "  applause ;  "  in  this  sense  doqa 
^£00  is  also  used  in  the  writings  of  the  Apostolic  Fathers,  and  it 
runs  indeed  into  the  other,  of.  however,  viii.  50,  54.  To  the  striv- 
ing after  human  glory  is  opposed  the  love  of  God,  for  this,  as  v. 
44  points  out,  involves  the  striving  after  glory  with  God.  The 
foretelling  of  false  Messiahs,  corresponding  with  Matt.  xxiv.  23, 
seq.  is  deserving  of  remark.  In  the  course  of  histor}^,  sixty- 
four  of  these  have  appeared ;  a  Bar  Cochba  found  twenty- 
four  thousand  adherents.  It  shows  a  profound  insight  into  the 
human  heart,  when  the  Saviour  deduces  the  adhesion  to  false 
Messiahs  from  the  fact  that  aflSinity  begets  sympathy,  when  he 
considers  the  striving  after  human  glory  as  the  chief  cause  of 
unbelief,  as  following  this  language  of  his  the  Evangelist  also 
does  in  xii.  43. — The  adjective  fiovou  is  used  as  an  adverb. 
•  V.  45-47.  As  in  v.  38,  vii.  17,  19,  Christ  points  out  that 
the  genuine  spirit  of  the  Old  Testament  must  also  lead  to  faith 
in  his  person.  Karrjopttv  is  to  be  taken  ideall}^,  like  xpivuv  in 
Matt.  xii.  41,  42.  If  the  spirit  and  the  word  of  Moses  lead  to 
Christ,  the  unbelieving  are  already  judged  by  Moses.  On 
eYpa(pe.v  the  commentators  refer  to  the  different  Mosaic  prophe- 
cies, especially  to  Deuteron.  xviii.  18.  But  the  train  of  thought 
in  our  passage  leads  us  to  take  it  in  a  universal  sense,  by  virtue 
of  which  Bengel  adds  to  iypaipzv  a  "nusquam  non,"  "he 
writes  everywhere."  K  v.  46  is  interpreted  in  accordance  with 
V.  38,  39,  our  Saviour  means  to  say,  that  a  love  of  God  such  as 
the  law  requires  would  recognize  an  affinity  in  Christ,  aiid 
would  feel  itself  drawn  to  him ;  Bengel :  Fide  explicita  opus 
erat,  "an  explicit  faith  was  needed."  There  is  certainly,  how- 
ever, no  necessity  for  interpreting  v.  43  in  such  strict  connec- 
tion with  38,  39.  Christ  may  have  had  in  his  eye  the  indirect 
and  typical  prophecies  of  Moses,  as  well  as  the  direct  ones. 

It  is  conceded  by  Strauss,  that  the  matter  of  this  Discourse 
is  in  keeping  with  the  character  of  Christ,  as  we  learn  it  from, 
the  other  Evangelists,  and  with  the  attendant  circumstances; 
but  the  form  and  style  become  for  this  very  reason  the  more 
suspicious,  as  they  have  the  very  closest  analogy  with  the  First 
Epistle  of  John  and  ^vith  those  parts  of  the  Gospel  in  which  the 
M 


166  Chap.  V.  — v.  47. 

author  speaks,  (Leb.  Jes.  Sd.  ed.  §  80;  4th  ed.  §  81.)  Weisse's 
theory  is,  that  we  are  to  regard  as  an  original  element  all  which 
has  affinity  to  the  discourses  in  the  Synoptists,  but  that  even  this 
has  been  expanded  in  a  theoretical  form  by  the  author  of  this 
Gospel ;  according  to  Bauer,  the  discourse  is  a  pure  invention. 
Adhering  to  what  we  have  said  in  the  introduction  to  this 
Commentary,  we  do  not  contend  for  the  verbal  accuracy  of  the 
details,  but  nevertheless  would  remark,  that  since  the  Evange- 
list, xii.  43,  adopts  the  words  used  by  Jesus  in  this  chapter,  it 
shows  that  elsewhere,  where  John's  own  phraseology  corres- 
ponds with  that  in  the  discourses  of  Christ  which  he  reports, 
we  may  be  allowed  to  believe  that  he  has  adopted  Christ's 
modes  of  expression. 


CHAPTER  VI. 


The  Miracle  of  the  Feeding. — v.  1-13. 

As  the  Evangelist  here,  deviating  from  his  general  rule, 
narrates  a  miracle  which  the  other  Evangelists  have  related,  we 
may  find  the  occasion  for  it  in  his  design  of  reporting  the  dis- 
courses connected  with  it.  (So  already  Calvin.)  He  advances 
in  mediam  rem,  for  the  return  of  our  Lord  from  Jerusalem  to 
Galilee  is  not  mentioned.  If  the  festival,  ch.  v.  1,  is  the  Pass- 
over, there  lies  (as  v.  4  of  this  chapter  speaks  again  of  a  Pass- 
over,) the  interval  of  a  whole  year  between  chapters  v.  and  vi. 
According  to  the  account  of  Mark  vi.  30,  seq.  Luke  ix.  10,  seq. 
the  Disciples  had  returned  to  Christ  from  their  first  missionary 
journey  ;  scarcely  could  they  give  an  account  to  Jesus  of  what 
they  had  experienced,  for  the  throng  of  people  increased  so 
greatly  that  they  could  not  find  time  even  to  eat.  Hereupon, 
our  Lord  retires  into  solitude  with  them,  to  the  eastern  side  of 
the  sea,  according  to  Luke  ix.  10,  to  Bethsaida  Julias.  The 
people,  however,  followed  him  on  foot,  attracted  by  the  heal- 
ing of  the  sick,  and  in  v.  4  there  lies,  perhaps,  the  intimation 
(cf.  ouu,  v.  5,)  that  the  crowd  of  people  had  been  still  further 
swelled  from  the  caravans  of  travelers  on  their  way  to  the  feast. 
The  discourses  of  our  Lord  chain  the  attention  of  the  people, 
the  third  hour  has  arrived,  (Matt.  xiv.  15,)  the  villages  that  lie 
around  are  too  remote  for  food  to  be  bought.  The  Saviour 
under  these  circumstances  performs  one  of  those  miracles  in 
which  he  displays  his  tender  philanthropy. 

V.  1-4.  Two  names  are  given  this  sea,  probably  for  the 
benefit  of  the  Greek  reader.  It  is  singular  that  John  (cf  v. 
15,)  uses  the  indefinite  to  opo;;,  which  we  find  in  Matt.  v.  1, 
Luke  ix.  28,  Mark  iii.  13.     I  have  in  my  Commentary  on  the 

(167) 


168  Chap.  VL— v.  5-13. 

Sermon  on  the  Mount,  thrown  out  on  Matt.  v.  1  the  conjecture, 
that  TO  OjOoc,  as  in  Hebrew  and  in  the  Septuagint,  is  used  for 
T^  dpscuTJ,  (see  Ebrard,  Kritik  d.  Ev.  Gesch.  i.  §.  71,)  for  the  sea 
of  Tiberias  lies  in  a  hollow  surrounded  by  hills,  from  which 
the  traveler  must  ascend  at  either  side  to  get  into  the  country. 
My  conjecture  is  confirmed  by  what  Robinson  says,  iii.  part,  2 
abth.  p.  499:  (Biblical  Researches  iii.  253,  (1856,)  ii.  499.) 
"  The  lake  presents  indeed  a  beautiful  sheet  of  limpid  water,  in 
a  deep  depressed  basin,  from  which  the  shores  rise  in  general 
steeply  and  continuously  all  around.  The  hills  are  round  and 
tame." — It  would  not  be  safe  to  draw  the  inference  from  v.  4, 
that  Christ  did  not  go  to  this  feast ;  see,  however,  the  remarks  on 
eh.  vii.  1,  2. 

V.  5-9.  Criticism  has  expressed  itself  in  the  strongest 
terms  in  regard  to  the  improbability  that  Christ,  on  seeing  such 
a  crowd,  should  at  once  have  been  struck  with  the  idea  of  feed- 
ing them.  Even  if  we  had  not  the  accounts  of  the  first  three 
Evangelists,  (of  this  miracle,)  an  impartial  critic,  in  view  of 
the  way  in  which  the  Evangelists  narrate  other  occurrences, 
would  feel  obliged  to  admit  that  in  every  case  much  may  have 
preceded,  which  the  Evangelist  John,  restricting  himself  to 
certain  topics,  omits  as  he  hurries  to  his  theme.  But  it  appears 
also  from  Matt.  xiv.  15,  seq.  that  the  people  had  been  with 
Christ  a  considerable  time  ;  that  they  had  been  instructed,  and 
their  sick  had  been  healed,  and  that  the  Disciples  had  com- 
menced to  draw  the  attention  of  our  Lord  to  the  need  of  food 
for  the  people.^  Matthew  agrees,  too,  with  John  in  the  state- 
ment that  Jesus,  first  of  all,  asked  the  Disciples  to  provide 
food.  That  Philip  was  specially  addressed,  is  accounted  for  by 
Bengel,  on  the  supposition  that  the  arrangements  of  domestic 
matters  had  been  committed  to  him,  and  by  Chrysostom  and 
Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  by  supposing  him  specially  weak  in  that 
faith  which  soars  above  the  external,  (xiv.  8.)  The  Tzecpd^eiv 
"proving"  referred  not  to  the  question,  whether  the  Disciple  had 
the  faith  of  miracles,  but  Christ  would  test  how  he  would  relieve 
himself  from  the  difficulty.     He  immediately  makes  an  accu- 

1  Ebrard,  1.  c.  I.  477,  supposes  that  Jesus  ascended  the  mountain,  after  perform- 
ing the  cures  mentioned  in  v.  2,  and  it  was  when  the  people  instead  of  dispersing, 
Btreamed  thither,  that  he  thought  of  feeding  them. 


The  Miracle  of  the  Feeding.  109 

rate  computation;  tlie  sum  of  two  hundred  denarii,  equivalent 
to  eighty  florins,"  exceeds  the  amount  of  money  they  had  in 
common.  As  here,  and  so  likewise  in  xii.  22,  Andrew  appears 
in  close  relation  to  Philip.  "£v,  if  it  be  genuine,  gives  promi- 
nence to  the  fact,  that  there  was  only  one  boy.  Barley  bread 
was  the  coarsest  food.  The  Talmud.  Tr.  Pesachim.  f.  3. 
"Jochanan  said:  The  barley  is  fine.  The  answer  was  :  Tell 
that  to  the  horses  and  asses."  '  Oipdpcovj  properly  Tzttoaipdytov, 
anything  eaten  with  bread,  but  particularly,  as  Plutarch,  Sym- 
pos.  iv.  4,  already  observes,  fish,  which  were  used  by  the  poor 
as  a  relish ;  those  here  oflfered  for  sale  were  probably  already 
cooked. 

V.  10-13.  There  was  grass  in  the  place,  for  it  was  about 
spring  time.  \4ua-c7TTscu  and  duayJJusa&ai,  to  recline  at  table. 
E'j'j^ap:(Tzr^(Ta::,  indeed,  designates  only  the  prayer  before  taking 
food,  but  V.  23  shows  incontestably,  that  the  Evangelist  saw 
in  this  prayer  the  medium  through  which  the  miracle  was 
wrought.  Luke  (ix.  16,)  has,  "  looking  up  to  heaven  he  blessed 
them,"  (the  loaves  and  fishes,)  cf.  John  xi.  41.  (On  the  contro- 
versy, whether  the  euXoyca  used  1  Oor.  x.  16,  in  speaking  of  the 
Lord's  Supper,  designates  the  blessing  merely,  cf.  Maldonatus 
on  Matt,  xiv.)  Jddcoxs,  according  to  Matthew,  xiv.  19,  includes 
the  assistance  of  the  Disciples.  These,  after  the  conclusion  of 
the  miracle,  had  to  collect  the  fragments,  and  perhaps  for  the 
very  purpose  of  giving  more  prominence  to  the  miraculous 
character  of  the  transaction,  (cf.  2  Kings  iv.  43.)  The  number  of 
the  baskets  corresponds  with  that  of  the  Apostles ;  the  fragments 
of  the  fishes  are,  for  reasons  easily  imagined,  not  mentioned 
again,  cf.  however,  Mark  vi.  43. 

The  natural  occurrence  to  which  Dr.  Paulus,  by  the  aid  of 
an  artificial  exegesis,  would  reduce  this  miracle,  (a  hospitable 
sharing  with  one  another  the  provisions  brought  with  them,  to 
which  they  were  induced  by  Christ's  benevolent  example,)  is 
still  regarded  by  several  of  the  most  recent  expositors  as  the 
basis  of  the  account,  which,  as  is  wont  with  a  legend,  took  the 
shape  of  a  narrative  of  a  miracle,  and  in  this  form  was 
delivered  to  the  writers  of  the  Gospels,  (thus  Gfrorer,  Kern, 

1  From  thirty  to  tliirty-fonr  dollars,  American  currency.     Tr. 
16 


170  Chap.  YL— v.  13-20. 

ITiise.)  To  hold  this  view  would  make  it  necessary  to  pre- 
suppose that  the  first  two  Gospels  are  not  genuine,  and  that 
the  author  of  the  fourth  Gospel  was  accidentally  absent  from  the 
scene.  If  the  latter  view,  (the  twelve  baskets  may  be  borne  in 
mind,)  like  the  former,  is  to  be  regarded  as  baseless  and  arbi- 
trary, neither  legend  nor  myth  (according  to  the  canon  recog- 
nized by  Strauss,  4th  ed.  i.  p.  62,)  can  have  any  thing  to  do 
with  this  case.  Among  those  who  recognize  the  historical 
character  of  the  narrative,  Olshausen,  as  he  has  done  with  the 
miracle  of  the  water  changed  into  wine,  attempts  by  the 
application  of  the  category  of  an  accelerated  process  of  nature 
to  this  feeding,  to  bring  it  near  to  what  ordinarily  occurs,  and 
consequently  near  to  our  conception.  In  reply  to  this,  Strauss 
had  also  shown  his  ability  to  make  the  thing  ridiculous,  for  he 
enumerates  one  after  the  other,  first,  the  steps  of  the  natural 
process  through  which  the  seed  matures  to  grain,  then  the 
stages  of  the  artificial  process  through  which  the  miller  and 
baker  carry  the  grain  and  the  cook  takes  the  fish  to  make  them 
fit  to  be  eaten,  and  then  puts  the  question,  whether  it  is  suppos- 
able  that  Christ  by  the  most  rapid  acceleration  caused  all  these 
processes  to  follow  each  other.  On  this  point,  however,  it  will 
be  enough  to  give  the  remark  of  Krabbe :  (Leben  Jesu,  p. 
273,)  "  If  we  here  see  a  manifestation  of  divine  causality  going 
forth  from  Christ,  the  different  human  acts  are  not  to  be 
brought  into  any  sort  of  comparative  reference.  That  which 
human  activity  produces  in  a  succession  of  time,  we  grant  to 
the  divine  causality  as  a  thing  wrought  at  once  in  its  totality." 
Certainly,  the  formula  of  an  accelerated  process  of  nature  may 
be  applied  here,  as  the  divine  causality  produces  a  similar  result 
in  a  natural  way,  (for  example,  the  bread-fruit  tree,)  to  that 
which  human  art  does  in  its  way.  It  is,  however,  peculiar  to  this 
miracle,  that  it  is  not  merely  the  internal  process  which  is  with- 
neld  from  view,  but  the  external  also.  And  not  only  is  it  diffi- 
cult to  determine  the  outward  lioiv,  whether,  to  wit:  as  Hilary 
akeady  asks,  the  miracle  occurs  in  the  hand  of  Christ  or  of  the 
Apostles,  (Chrysostom,  Calvin,)  or  of  the  people,  but  the  ivhat 
also,  that  is,  whether  we  are  to  suppose  that  the  increase  of  the 
loaves  and  fishes  took  place  in  their  number  or  in  their  sub- 
stance.    In  regard  to  the  former,  the  more  obvious  view,  accord- 


Christ  walks  upon  the  Sea.  171 

mg  to  V.  11,  Mark  vi.  41,  is,  that  the  blessing  and  influence  of 
God,  to  which  eukoyr^ae,  euj^apiavr^aa:;  refer,  were  manifested  while 
Christ  held  the  food  in  his  own  hand,  (cf.  also,  Mark  viii,  19.) 
Beyond  that  point,  however,  the  process  is  withheld  from  our 
conception,  so  that  we  must  confess  ourselves  unable  to  solve 
the  questions  which  go  further. 

Christ  walks  upon  the  Sea. —  v.  11-21. 

Y.  11,  15.  The  miracle  at  first  makes  such  an  overwhelm- 
ing impression  upon  the  people,  that  they  regard  Christ  as  the 
prophet'  promised  in  Deuteronomy  xviii.  15.  Under  the  do- 
minion of  earthly  expectations  regarding  the  Messiah,  they  wish 
now  to  take  him  [ApTzd^ecu,)  with  them  to  Jerusalem,  in  order 
to  make  him  a  king,^-a  fact  which  makes  it  clear  why  Jesus 
frequently  prohibited  persons  from  noising  abroad  his  miracles. 
"Wlien  in  Luke,  immediately  after  the  account  of  this  miracle, 
Jesus  lays  before  his  Disciples,  in  solitude,  the  question,  "Whom 
say  the  people  that  I  am?"  (Luke  ix.  18,)  it  might  seem  as  if 
this  stood  in  connection  with  the  fact  mentioned  by  John,  but 
according  to  Matthew,  Jesus  did  not  dismiss  the  people  until 
the  Disciples  had  departed  by  ship.  According  to  Matthew  and 
Mark,  moreover,  Jesus  after  performing  the  miracle  withdrew 
to  a  mountain,  to  be  alone  with  God.  "When  in  Matthew 
he  commands  the  Disciples  to  go  before  him  unto  the  other 
side,  while  he  sent  the  multitudes  away,  there  lies  in  it  an  inti- 
mation that  he  would  follow,  and  meet  them  in  Capernaum. 
John  gives  Capernaum  as  the  point  to  which  they  crossed ; 
Mark  says  Bethsaida,  the  places  lying  close  to  each  other; 
Matthew  says  Gennesaret — the  name  of  the  entire  region. 

V.  16-20.  The  d(/>ca  mentioned  here,  is  the  d(/>ca  osuzepa, 
between  seven  and  nine  o'clock,  cf.  Matt.  xiv.  15,  with  v.  23. 
"Epysff&ai,  according  to  the  Greek  and  Hebrew  usage,  has 
the  sense,  "  to  go,  to  take  a  direction  to  a  point ;"  the  imperfect 
presents  the  action  as  in  progress.  The  sea  measured,  accord- 
ing to  Joscphus,  at  its  greatest  width,  forty  stadia,  that  is 
about  a  German  mile,^  and  could  consequently  be  crossed  in  a 

1  About  five  miles  and  three-quarters,  English.     Tr. 


172  Chap.  VL  — v.  21. 

short  time ;  but  when  tney  were  about  the  middle,  (according 
to  Matthew,)  a  storm  arose,  which  detained  them  till  toward 
morning,  for  when  Jesus  reached  them,  (Mark  vi.  48,)  about 
the  fourth  watch  of  the  night,  which  was  reckoned  from  four  to 
six  o'clock,  they  had  just  passed  over  two-thirds  of  it.  When 
they  unexpectedly  saw  Jesus  near  the  vessel,  they  were  terrified 
at  his  appearance,  as  if  he  had  been  a  spirit. 

y.  21.  This  passage,  considered  without  reference  to  the 
other  Evangelists,  seems  to  affirm  that  Jesus  was  not  taken 
into  the  vessel,  because  they  were  already  so  near  the  shore. 
As  according  to  the  others,  however,  he  Avas  received,  the  ques- 
tion is  raised,  whether  the  two  statements  can  be  harmonized  ? 
Beza  already  remarks  that  d^shiv  in  the  verb.  fin.  united  with 
the  infinitive,  imparts  to  it  the  idea  of  willingness,  and  accord- 
ing]}'-  translates :  volente  animo  eum  reciperunt,  "  they  received 
him  with  willingness."  In  the  nature  of  the  case,  it  was  to  be 
expected  that  they  would  be  represented  as  "  willing"  in  con- 
trast with  their  previous  fear,  and  certainly  there  is  no  philo- 
logical objection  to  this  view.  See  Buttman's  Greek  Gram- 
mar, 10th  ed.  p.  744 ;  Sturz.  Lexic.  Xeuoph.  under  the  word 
d-eXecv;  cf.  also,  Ast  on  ^ooXeo&ac,  in  Plato,  de  Legibus.  xii.  9 ; 
"Winer,  4th  ed.  p.  438.  In  John,  too,  viii.  44,  d-eXeTe  has  this 
meaning,  so  also  in  Luke  xx.  46,  1  Cor.  x.  27 ;  the  actual  per- 
formance of  the  action  need  not  be  mentioned,  as  the  passage 
last  cited  shows,  (cf.  i.  43.)  Kai  before  tb&eax:  does  not  express 
antithesis,  but  introduces  a  new  feature ; after  etJii'eioc,  supply: 
"After  they  had  received  him."  If  the  wind  had  subsided, 
and  but  a  third  of  the  passage  remained,  it  is  evident  that  they 
must  soon  have  reached  the  land,  and  the  sooner  if  the  point 
of  landing  was  Bethsaida  Julias,  (Luke  ix.  10,)  for  in  that 
case  they  had  not  the  entire  width  of  the  sea  to  cross. 

The  view  which  was  maintained  con  amore  in  the  days  of 
"enlightenment,"  (Lange,  Stolz,  Paulus,)  that  inl  t7^c,  d^a)Aaar]<; 
meant  by  the  sea,  that  Jesus  went  by  land  round  the  sea,  and 
thus  appeared  to  them  suddenly,  is  especially  incapable  of  being 
harmonized  vdih  the  account  in  Matthew,  and  has  in  general 
been  abandoned  at  the  same  time  with  the  explanation  of  the 
miracles,  as  natural  events,  although  so  far  as  the  language  is 
concerned,  it  may  at  least  be  harmonized  with  the  account  in 


ClIUIST    WALKS    UPON    THE    SeA.  173 

John,  for  i-c  with  a  genitive  can  in  many  cases  be  translated 
"6y,"  where  the  banks,- especially  of  streams,  are  referred  to, 
which  lie  above  the  waters;  2  Kings  ii.  7,  Septuagint,  {iTzc  too 
'lopdduoo,)  Dan.  viii.  2,  John  xxi.  1.  Since  rationalism  has 
abandoned  tliis  exposition,  nothing,  really,  but  the  mythical 
theory  is  left — but  that  a  mere  emanation  of  the  fancy  should 
Lave  obtained  in  both  classes  of  the  Gospels  the  very  same 
carefully  designated  historical  position,  does  not  seem  pro- 
bable even  to  those  who  are  favorable  to  the  mj'th  ;  Kern 
persuades  himself,  therefore,  that  John  only  siq^posed  that  Jesus 
walked  upon  the  water ;  Ilase  helps  himself  out  by  supposing 
that  John  was  accidentally  absent ;  De  Wette  (on  Matt,  xiv.) 
stands  perfectly  at  a  loss.  Some  of  the  defenders  of  the  mira- 
cle, Damascenus  for  example,  supposed  that  the  miracle  was  to 
be  explained  as  an  influence  exercised  on  the  waters ;  most, 
however,  as  an  operation,  and  that  a  transient  one,  on  the 
bodies,  (for  Peter  is  not  to  be  left  out  of  consideration.)  01s- 
hausen,  on  the  other  hand,  following  the  Valentinians,  has 
supposed  a  quality  specially  inherent  in  the  Saviour's  body: 
"That  a  more  exalted  physical  nature,  teeming  with  the  powers 
of  a  higher  world,  should  rise  above  the  earthl}'  level,  is  less 
surprising;"  according  to  him,  the  process  of  glorification  of 
Christ's  physical  nature  begins  during  his  earthly  life.  But 
how  are  we  to  understand  this  ?  If  a  diminution  of  the  spe- 
cific gravity  of  Christ's  body  w^as  a  part  of  this  process,  so  that 
at  last  it  became  lighter  than  the  air,  does  it  not  then  seem  to 
be  another  miracle,  that  he  could  ivalk  upon  the  earth  ?  This 
view  applied  to  the  earthly  existence  of  the  Saviour,  leads,  in 
more  respects  than  one,  to  strange  results.  In  proof  of  the 
power  of  the  will  to  overcome  the  principle  of  gravitation,  an 
appeal  has  been  made  to  our  daily  experience  that  the  hand  or 
foot  can  be  lifted  by  the  mere  exercise  of  the  will,  (Twesten, 
Dogmatik,  i.  p.  380.)  This  theory  assumes,  that  between  Christ's 
w^alking  on  the  sea  and  the  lifting  of  an  arm,  there  is  simply  a 
quantitive  distinction  of  the  will ;  but  the  latter  operation,  in  fact, 
which  is  the  result  of  muscular  contraction,  cannot  be  regarded 
as  annulling  the  law  of  gravitation.  Nothing  analogous  then 
would  remain  except  the  fact,  Avhich  Kieser  and  Kerner  (die 
Seherin  v.  Prevorst,  i.  p.  94. — Seeress  of  Prevorst,)  assure  us  fre- 

IG* 


174  Chap.  VL  — V.  22-27. 

quently  occurred,  that  persons  under  the  magnetic  influence  did 
not  sink  in  the  water.  But  this  would  prove  nothing,  except  that 
in  a  sphere  different  from  that  occupied  by  the  miracles  of 
Christ,  things  inexplicable  like  them  occur.  We  have,  therefore, 
in  this  case  also,  to  adhere  to  the  canon,  which  is  applicable 
to  all  Christ's  miracles :  that  the  will,  which  is  in  absolute  unity 
with  the  Ground  of  all  the  laws  of  nature,  is  likewise  the  Power 
over  all  the  particular  laws  of  nature. — The  teleological  objec- 
tion is  yet  to  be  considered,  that  the  miracle  is  aimless,  and 
appears  merely  as  ixTrhjxTcxou,  "astounding."  To  this  maybe 
replied :  Does  not  every  action  which  establishes  in  the 
Disciples  a  consciousness  of  Christ's  unity  in  power  with  the 
Father,  (chap.  xi.  22,)  attain  its  moral  end?  Hess:  "Thus  did 
he  convert  before  them  into  a  thing  of  vision,  that  image  under 
which  the  devout  olden  time  represented  God  :  '  Who  treadeth 
on  the  waves  of  the  sea  as  on  dry  land,' "  (Job  ix.  8.)  Such 
actions  of  the  Saviour  have  besides,  however,  their  subjective 
reasons.  In  the  present  instance,  the  reason,  according  to  Mark 
vi.  48,  was  that  Christ  from  the  mountain  looked  down  upon  the 
peril  to  which  his  Disciples  were  exposed  by  the  storm,  and 
hastened,  consequently,  to  help  them.  The  danger  could  have 
been  no  ordinary  one,  for  the  Disciples,  as  we  remarked 
before,  had  been  obliged  to  contend  for  six  hours  with  the 
storm.  The  occasion  for  this  miracle,  consequently,  offered 
itself  in  an  appeal  to  his  compassionate  love. 

Discourse  to  the  People  in  the  Synagogue  at  Capernaum, 

IN   REGARD   TO   THE   TRUE   BrEAD    OF  LiFE. — V.    22-59. 

V.  22-24.  There  is  no  reason  for  thinking  that  every  indi- 
vidual of  the  five  thousand  who  had  been  fed,  returned  on  the 
following  morning;  but  a  part  had  assembled  again,  and  others 
probably  united  with  them.  As  regards  the  construction,  the 
Cod.  A  D  L  have  in  v.  22,  the  reading  e7dov,  and  the  struc- 
ture of  the  sentence  is  then  regular;  but  v.  23  has  pretty 
clearly  the  character  of  a  parenthesis,  for  which  reason  it  is 
preferable  with  Cod.  B  to  read  cdcov,  so  as  to  take  v.  24  as  an 
interruption  of  the  sentence  commenced,  which  completed 
would  have  been:  "They  concluded  that  Jesus  had  gone  by 


The  True  Bread  of  Life.  175 

land  to  Capernaum,  and  hurried,  therefore,  to  follow  him  in  the 
ships."  The  sense  of  on  nXocdpcov  xzL  may  then  he  this :  "When 
they  saw  that  there  was  but  one  ship,  that  is,  the  one  in  which 
the  Disciples  departed,  and  which  had  returned  toward  morn- 
ing, that  consequently  Jesus  could  not  have  followed  them  by 
ship,  (in  which  case,  also,  the  one  in  which  he  went  would  have 
returned,)  and  as  they  knew  that,  &c."  This  was  probably  the 
way  it  was  understood  by  the  glossarists,  who  interpolated  in 
V.  22  the  words :  ix£7uo  e/c  o  hi^rjoav  ol  im&rjzal  auvou ;  thus 
Meyer  takes  it.  But  the  presumption  that  the  ships  must 
necessarily  have  returned,  would  have  been  too  unwarranted. 
Better,  therefore:  "As  they  knew  that  on  the  day  before  but 
one  vessel  had  been  there,  in  which  the  Disciples  alone  left, 
and  now  found  that  Jesus,  too,  was  no  longer  there;"  the 
aorists  rju  and  auvztar^l&z  are  consequently,  in  accordance  with 
the  Grecism  mentioned  in  i.  40,  iv.  41,  to  be  taken  as  pluperfect. 
When  Strauss  speaks  of  a  fleet  as  necessary  to  transport  the 
five  thousand,  he  only  displays  his  determination  to  fix  impos- 
sibilities on  the  Evangelist.  Who  would  think  it  even  probable 
that  every  man  of  that  entire  multitude  returned,  and  that  they 
all,  without  exception,  would  determine  to  pass  over;  besides, 
if  the  Tzlocdnca  embraced  not  merely  skifts,  but  trading  ships 
also,  {zd.  TtXdia  is  substituted  in  the  next  verse  for  nlocdpca,)  they 
might  hold  a  large  number. 

V.  25.  As  the  close  of  v.  24  already  informed  us,  they  had 
the  distinct  object  of  finding  Jesus,  and  they  now  found  him  at 
the  very  place  it  would  have  been  most  natural  to  seek  him — 
in  the  synagogue.  Here,  too,  whoever  wishes  to  press  the 
letter,  can  bring  out  the  contradiction,  that  according  to  this 
verse  they  met  him  by  the  sea-shore.  Their  question  about  the 
time,  involves  the  question  as  to  the  way  in  which  Christ  had 
crossed  over;  they  assume  that  Jesus  came  by  land.  As  the^ 
confirmation  of  the  miracle  is  presented  in  so  incidental  a 
manner,  it  is  a  proof  how  little  the  Evangelist  is  disposed  to 
give  it  special  prominence. 

V.  26,  27.  Just  as  in  the  case  of  Nicodemus,  the  answer  of 
Jesus  is  designed  to  meet  the  mental  wants  of  the  questioners ; 
they  occupy  the  lowest  position,  for  they  are  merely  concerned 
about  the  temporal  advantage  of  the  miracle.     The  charge 


176  Chap.  Yl.  —  v.  28-36. 

seems  to  be  contradicted  by  the  readiness  of  the  people  to  take 
him  as  Messiah,  but  might  not  this  enthusiasm  quickly  be 
dissipated  ?  "Epyd^^ead^ac,  in  the  classic  and  Hellenistic  writers, 
"to  earn;"  without  longing  on  their  part,  this  food  could  not 
be  obtained.     Icppaycl^ta&ac  has  the  same  meaning  as  in  iii.  33. 

V.  28,  29.  The  people  have  an  indistinct  perception  that 
the  words  of  Jesus  demand  a  performance  of  the  works  of  the 
law,  works  pleasing  to  God,  (Jerem.  xlviii.  10.)  Christ  opposes 
to  the  many  works  that  one  which  Paul  especially  designates 
as  the  source  of  righteousness. 

V.  30,  31.  This  demand  of  a  new  miracle,  as  if  the  feeding 
of  the  five  thousand  had  been  wholly  insignificant,  is  regarded 
by  Kern,  Bauer  and  "Weisse,  as  historically  impossible ;  accord- 
ing to  Schweizer,  no  part  of  the  discourse  had  reference  to  the 
preceding  histoiy  of  the  feeding,  which  has  been  foisted  in  by 
the  Galilean  diceuast.  Already  Bucer  and  Grotius  remark, 
that  the  speakers  here  can  hardly  be  those  who  were  witnesses 
of  that  miracle.  That  in  v.  24  the  oj^).o:;  (people)  is  regarded 
as  identical  with  that  of  the  previous  day,  cannot,  in  fact,  be 
urged  against  this  explanation ;  where  is  the  warrant  that  no 
other  persons  had  joined  them,  and  who  expects  of  John  such 
a  nice  discrimination  of  the  speakers  ?  But  there  is  no  neces- 
sity for  resorting  to  this  supposition,  for  what  Liicke  says  is 
certainly  justified  on  psychological  grounds,  that:  "The  carnal 
belief  in  miracles  is  insatiable,  it  craves  miracle  after  miracle," 
and  Grotius  quotes  the  words  :  fiezd  r.  bbatv  tdytara.  yrjpdaxzi 
Xdptz,  "After  the  gift,  the  thanks  soon  grow  old."  "When 
Jesus  spoke,  v.  27,  of  an  enduring  meat,  might  not  these 
words  excite  in  the  carnal  multitude  the  hope  of  a  new  and  yet 
more  marvelous  supply  of  food  ?  Luther  remarks,  also,  perhaps 
with  justice,  that  we  may  suj^pose  them  to  have  been  irritated 
by  the  reply  of  Jesus.  This  would  explain  the  contemptuous 
tI  ipydCrj,  "what  dost  thou  work,"  or  it  may  have  resulted  also 
from  the  selfish  motive  of  urging  Christ  to  do  yet  more.  A 
similar  motive  explains  the  selection  of  the  expression,  "  bread 
from  heaven,"  Ps.  Ixxviii.  24,  to  depreciate  yet  further  the 
earthly  bread  of  which  they  had  partaken.  In  Matt.  xvi.  1, 
we  have  the  same  view,  that  a  brilliant  miracle  must  be  "  from 
heaven." 


The  true  Bread  of  Life.  177 

Y.  32,  33.  As  elsewhere  in  the  discourses  of  Christ  in  Joliu, 
our  Saviour  adopts  and  confirms  in  a  profounder  sense  the 
words  of  his  opponents,  so  here  he  styles  his  appearing  on  earth 
a  bread  from  heaven,  for  by  it  not  merely  nourishment  in 
general,  but  the  true  life,  was  imparted  to  mankind.  As  Moses 
had  not  in  the  fullest  sense  given  bread  from  heaven,  there  is  a 
total  negation  of  his  having  given  it.  Kata^aiviov  here  and 
in  V.  50,  stands  in  the  participle  present ;  on  the  contrary,  in  v. 
41,  51,  it  is  in  the  participle  aorist ;  only  in  the  latter  case  is 
there  a  reference  to  the  historical  appearing  in  Christ  of  the 
bread  of  heaven,  here  consequently  the  sense  is :  "  That  only  de- 
serves the  name  of  the  bread  of  God  which  descends  from  heaven, 
and  has  the  power  of  imparting  life  to  the  whole  world." 

y.  34-3G.  The  request  in  v.  34  recalls  to  mind  the  very 
similar  one,  iv.  15.  Bucer,  Calvin,  Maldonatus,  who  had 
regarded  those  words  (of  the  Samaritan  woman,)  as  irony,  find 
also  in  these  an  expression  of  scorn.  Luther  supposes  that 
they  had  in  their  mind,  food  for  the  body.  "\Ye  suppose  that 
although  they  did  riot  comprehend  in  its  proper  sense  what 
was  promised  by  the  Lord,  they  might,  nevertheless,  with  a 
dim  presension  of  something  exalted,  ask  of  him  a  gift  whose 
promise  was  clothed  with  such  sublime  predicates.  Christ  now- 
tells  them  who  is  the  subject  to  which  the  category  expressed 
in  V.  33  is  applicable.  As  bread  and  water  satisfy  bodily  need, 
so  he  satisfies  spiritual  need,  and  adequately,  too,  so  that  in  him 
the  satisfaction  is  absolute  and  there  is  no  need  of  seeking  any 
other.  The  condition  is,  the  coming  to  him — evidently,  as  the 
connection  shows,  under  the  presupposition  of  need ;  that  this 
coming  designates  faith,  is  shown  by  v.  36,  40,  47.  In  v.  36, 
the  first  xai  has  created  difficulty ;  it  is  the  result,  in  fact,  of 
an  idiom  peculiar  to  John.  The  Evangelist  partly  unites 
adversative  periods,  where  the  Greek  writers  would  use  re — oi, 
or  xat — oi,  and  coordinate  periods  also  by  the  double  W,  as  in 
vii.  28,  ix.  37,  xii.  28,  xv.  24 ;  see  the  remark  on  xvii.  25. 
'  Oftilv  like  &ecof>e7u,  v.  40,  1  John  iii.  6,  referring  to  their  per- 
ception of  what  he  had  done.  Christ  had  not  used  precisely 
this  language,  either  to  this  Galilean  multitude  or  the  people 
in  general ;  there  is  consequently  here  an  inexactness,  like  tha< 
in  X.  26,  xii.  34. 


178  Chap.  VI.— v.  37-50. 

V.  37-40.  The  style  here  has  a  certain  breadth.  Luther 
says:  "John  describes  this  sermon  with  great  diligence  and 
pleasure."  Why  did  they  not  believe?  Because  they  were 
destitute  of  the  inward  sense  of  want,  and  came  to  him  out- 
wardly indeed,  but  not  inwardly.  This  inward  sense  of  want 
is  represented  as  the  gift  of  the  Father,  (cf  dedora:,  Matt.  xix. 
11,)  is  more  particularly  described,  v.  44,  45,  and  afterward 
especially  in  the  prayer,  ch.  17,  is  frequently  made  prominent. 
The  Son  of  God  has  appeared  in  order  to  satisfy  the  divinely 
originated  wants  which  lie  in  the  very  nature  of  man,  and  acts 
therefore  in  constant  unity  with  the  Father.  Grotius  supposes 
that  dioouai  is  used  here  cum  eflectu  aliquo,  like  xXrjzoi  in  Paul's 
Epistles,  but  xvii.  12  shows  that  those  committed  to  him  by 
the  Father  may  yet  be  lost  by  their  own  fault.  Christ  com- 
prehends all  his  gifts  in  the  one  gift  of  true  life,  and  casting 
his  glance,  as  it  were,  over  the  course  of  the  development  of 
that  life,  points  to  its  final  aim,  when  the  outward  shall  become 
like  the  inward,  cf.  the  remarks  on  ch.  v.  21,  seq. 

v.  41,  42.  royyu^o),  according  to  the  Greek  usage,  implies  a 
murmurins:  of  disdain.  The  human  birth  of  Christ  seems  to 
exclude  the  supernatural  origin,  cf.  on  vii.  27. 

V.  43-47.  The  point  of  our  Saviour's  reply  is,  that  all  dis- 
pute about  his  person  is  fruitless,  until  the  internal  sense  of 
want  is  experienced.  In  what  this  consists,  we  are  told,  v.  45,  46. 
Luther:  "You  wish  to  subject  me  to  measure  and  square,  and 
judge  my  word  by  your  reason,  but  I  say  to  you,  that  is  not 
the  right  way  and  path — you  will  not  come  to  Him  till  the 
Father  opens  to  you  his  great  mercy,  and  himself  teaches 
you  that  from  his  fatherly  love  he  sent  Christ  into  the  world. 
(For)  the  drawing  is  not  as  a  hangman  draws  a  thief  to  the 
gallows,  but  it  is  a  friendly  alluring,  and  drawing  to  himself." 
Ammonius :  oux  iarc  to  Ti))rov  ^  ec<;  ifik  ttccttc^,  dXXd  zrj(;  duw^ev 
dtiztti  /yo;r-^c,  ^J^«  ^vo^c  "«  ^~'^P  vouv.  " Qa-zp  lazouj  -po^dyec  b 
Tzarrjp  r.  Xpiaro)  r.  d.o&s.vzli:^  dvd^pcor.ou^.  ("Faith  in  me  is  no 
thino-  of  chance,  but  there  is  need  of  an  influence  from  above, 
that  you  may  know  the  things  that  pass  understanding.  The 
Father  conducts  sick  men  to  Christ,  as  to  a  physician.") — In  a 
free  citation  from  the  Old  Testament,  he  shows  by  Isaiah  liv. 
13,  that  there  is  the  promise  of  a  time  when  all  shall  permit 


The  true  Bread  of  Life.  179 

themselves  to  be  taught  of  the  Father.  This  teaching  of  the 
Father  consists  in  an  internal  guidance  to  the  Son,  for,  as 
Schleiermacher  expresses  it,  human  nature  is  put  to  the  Re- 
deemer. Didymus:  "He  therefore  who  hears  xazd  r.  xotvdz 
ii^uola^y  according  to  the  conception  which  men  have  in 
common,  and  learns  from  the  Father,  cometh  by  faith  to  the 
Lord."  If  the  expression  be  not  taken  in  a  false  sense,  it 
might  be  said  that  the  Christian  truth  is  an  "engrafted  word," 
(Jas.  i.  21.)  Theophylact  observes  that  as  the  magnet  does  not 
attract  every  thing,  but  only  iron,  so  also  to  be  attracted  by 
Christ,  there  must  exist  a  certain  frame  of  mind,  (the  feel- 
ing of  what  we  should  be,  and  are  not.)  There  is .  a  parallel, 
therefore,  in  the  thought,  ch.  viii.  47,  x.  27,  xviii.  37.  Since 
Christ  speaks  not  merely  of  the  teaching,  but  adds  the  /Jta&cov, 
it  follows  that  men  may  act  contraiy  to  the  voice  of  that  inter- 
nal need,  as  in  the  case  of  Judas,  (xvii.  12.)  Since  Christ  else- 
where imputes  to  himself  also  a  hearing  of  the  Father,  (ch.  v.  30, 
viii.  40,)  it  is  added  by  way  of  limitation,  that  the  hearing 
which  believers  have  is  not  like  the  hearing  which  the  Son  has ; 
that  the  Son  has  in  addition  the  vision  of  the  Father,  which 
presupposes  in  his  self-consciousness  the  unity  with  the  Father, 
(see  on  ch.  i.  18.)^  Hereupon  the  high  importance  of  faith  in 
him  is  again  made  prominent. — "EXxztv^  kXxuecv,  different  from 
a'jpscv,  is  chosen  with  reference  to  the  ^^ come"  which  is  used 
tropically,  and  designates  even  in  the  Old  Testament  the 
mighty  internal  and  external  operations  by  which  God  arouses 
,  the  attention  of  men  to  divine  things,  Jer.  xxxi.  3,  Song  of 
Sol.  i.  4.  In  Paul's  Epistles  the  external  and  internal  activity 
of  the  Father,  by  which  he  leads  to  the  Son,  is  embraced  in 
the  word  xaXeiv.  The  genitive  «?£o5  with  dcoaxroi  designates 
God  as  the  emanating  point  of  the  teaching,  cf.  Matt.  xxiv.  35, 
1  Thess.  iv.  9. 

Y.  48-50.  Repetition  of  the  thought  in  v.  32,  35.  If  the 
antithesis  adduced  in  evidence  be  taken  iu  perfect  strictness, 
the  inference  from  it  is  either  that  believers   do   not   even 

*  Calvin  and  Luther  take  it  in  a  sense  entirely  different ;  the  Father  never  draws 
apart  from  Christ,  but  only  in  and  through  the  preaching  of  Christ How,  more- 
over, Bauer  can  say  that  the  original  germ  of  this  declaration  is  to  be  foimd  in 
Matt.  3U.  27,  would  be  intelligible,  only  in  case  it  were  there  said:  "No  one  knows 
the  Son,  but  he  to  whom  the  Father  will  reveal  him,"  but  it  says  just  the  reverse. 


180  Chap.  VL  — v.  51-59. 

physically  die,  or  that  all  who  are  unbelievers  are  to  expect 
either  in  general  no  existence,  or  at  least  no  full  life  after  they 
die.  That  the  former  is  not  meant,  is  proven  by  xi.  25,  and  by 
the  d.vaafjfT(o  xzX,  v.  54;  the  latter,  consequently,  is  meant,  as 
then  it  follows  at  once  that  nothing  but  faith  in  Christ  can  give 
true  life  even  in  this  world.  That  the  hearers  should  have 
connected  this  meaning  with  it  at  this  time,  is  not,  indeed,  to 
be  expected.  In  order  that  he  may  take  the  "va  more  strictly, 
De  Wette  proposes  to  translate  oJ/roc,  "o/  such  a  kind  is  the 
bread,  to  wit:  that  it  can  impart  immortality,"  but  his  view  is 
opposed  to  V.  33 ;  7va,  consequently,  is  rather  to  be  taken  here 
in  accordance  with  the  same  usage  by  which  it  elsewhere  stands 
after  the  demonstrative,  (Winer,  p.  314.     Tr.  p.  257.) 

V.  51-59.  For  the  exposition  of  this  passage,  which  from 
its  actual  or  supposed  reference  to  the  Lord's  Supper  has 
occupied  the  attention  of  commentators  to  a  large  degree,  cf. 
the  Zeitsch.  of  Heydenreich  and  Hiiffel,  2  B.  2  H.  p.  239 ;  the 
very  excellent  observations  of  Kling,  Stud.  u.  Krit.  1836,  H.  1 ; 
F.  E.  Miiller,  numne  locus  lo.  vi.  51-58,  idoneis  argumentis 
ad  verum  et  proprium  s.  ccense  usum  trahi  queat.  1839  ;  Tisch- 
endorf,  de  Christo  pane  vitse  s.  de  loco  lo.  vi.  51-59,  coense 
s.  potissimum  ratione  habita.  1839 ;  the  history  of  the  ancient 
exposition  is  given  by  Liicke  in  the  2d  Excursus,  (left  out  in 
the  3d  edition ;)  the  modern  views  are  to  be  found  in  Lindner, 
die  Lehre,  &c.    The  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  p.  241,  seq. 

What  is  expressed  antithetically  in  v.  50  is  explained  in  v. 
51  in  a  direct  manner.  Zojv  is  not  precisely  equivalent  to 
^cooTTouov,  it  only  expresses  the  possession  of  the  life,  v.  57,  iv. 
10.  Kac — OS  designates  a  more  detailed  statement,  as  in  John 
i.  3,  or  a  correction,  as  in  xv.  27.  Zwingle:  Dixi  diu  me  panem 
esse  vitse,  sed  nondum  quo  pacto  id  fiat,  hoc  iam  aperiam, 
"I  long  ago  called  myself  the  bread  of  life,  but  have  not 
defined  the  sense  in  which  I  am  such  ;  this  I  will  now  explain." 
'^Hu  iyo)  dcodco  is  wanting  in  so  many  of  the  authorities,  that 
Lachmann  omits  it,  but  it  can  hardly  be  dispensed  with 
grammatically,  (Miiller,  Liicke.)  The  future  already  shows  in 
the  first  part,  that  not  the  appearing  of  Christ  in  human  life 
in  itself,  but  the  ofiering  up  of  this  life  for  the  world  possesses 
the  nourishing  power,  as  it  is  also  expressed  in  chap.  xi.  24. 


The  true  Bread  of  Life.  181 

Yet  at  the  first  dwaco,  the  question  may  arise,  whether  it  applies 
to  the  historical  institutory  act  of  this  food  which  took  place  in 
the  expiatory  death,  or  to  the  continued  exhibition  in  the  con- 
tinued appropriation  of  which  v.  53  speaks,  (thus  Calvin  takes 
it.)  The  hearers  see  clearly  that  Christ  cannot,  in  the  literal 
sense,  give  his  "flesh"  as  food,  and  confer  together,  there- 
fore, with  one  another  as  to  the  real  meaning  of  the  word. 
Idp^  cannot  essentially  differ  from  fj  ^wx'?'  Matt.  xx.  28,  but 
the  preceding  image  of  bread  naturally  led  to  the  use  in  this 
place  of  (idp^  instead  of  <l'o-)[/j,  (1  Pet.  iii.  18,  Eph.  ii.  15.)  As 
Christ  in  his  answer  to  the  question  of  the  Jews,  now  declares 
that  his  flesh  and  blood  must  be  partaken  of  and  be  in  reality 
food  and  drink,  the  habit  of  our  Redeemer  of  giving  promi- 
nence to  the  very  thing  which  has  given  offense  to  his  hearers, 
and  of  confirming  it,  sometimes  though  not  always  with 
"verily,  verily,"  (v.  19,  vi.  32,  viii.  58,  x.  1,)  leads  to  the 
presumption  that  the  eating  of  his  flesh  is  here  to  be  taken  in 
a  stricter  sense  than  before.  This  would  be  the  case,  if  Christ 
had  reference  to  the  Lord's  Supper.  The  usual  objection,  that 
such  a  reference  would  at  that  time  hav^e  been  entirely  unintel- 
ligible to  his  hearers,  has  no  force,  (see  what  we  have  said  on 
ii.  19  ;)  on  the  other  hand  it  serves  to  strengthen  that  view,  and 
to  confute  the  latter,  which  assumes  that  there  is  a  mere 
repetition  of  the  same  thought  here,  that  our  Saviour  no  longer 
speaks  of  his  "flesh"  merely,  but  of  his  "blood"  also,  that 
the  strong  expression  zpcoyscu  (manducare)  is  used,  and  (a  fact 
on  which  Scheibel  lays  all  stress,)  we  have  in  v.  55,  dXrjd-ax:. 
This  exposition,  then,  after  Chrysostom,  Cyrill,  Ammonius,  has 
become  the  current  one  in  the  Catholic  Church,  (Cajetan, 
Jansen,  and  some  others  deviating,  however;)  on  the  opposite, 
the  earlier  Lutherans  (probably  from  an  apprehension  that 
otherwise  they  could  not  escape  the  doctrine  of  tran substantia- 
tion,) would  not  concede  that  there  was  any  reference  to  the 
Lord's  Supper ;  in  fact,  Calixtus,  .who  supposed  that  there  was 
such  a  reference,  was  on  that  very  account  charged  by  Calovius 
with  heresy.  But  in  recent  times.  Dr.  Scheibel,  in  sustaining 
the  Lutheran  doctrine,  has  dwelt  with  the  greatest  emphasis  on 
this  passage,  in  his  work :  "  The  Lord's  Supper.  Breslau, 
1823,"  and  Olshausen  and  Kliug  have  maintained,  that  if  not 
-^  17 


182  Chap.  YL  —  y.  59. 

the  rite,  yet  at  least  the  idea  from  which  has  proceeded  the 
institution  of  the  Supper,  is  here  the  subject  of  discourse,  of. 
Miiller,  h  c.  p.  89,  seq.  Bretschneider,  Strauss  and  Bauer, 
also  think  that  a  reference  to  the  Sacrament  is  to  be  con- 
ceded, and  with  it,  consequently,  one  proof  more  that  the  dis- 
course is  not  genuine;  according  to  Hase,  (Life  of  Jesus,  3d 
ed.  §  80,)  this  turn  at  least  of  the  discourse  belongs  not  to  the 
Redeemer,  but  to  the  doctrinal  system  of  his  Disciple. — We 
proceed  to  weigh  the  conflicting  exposition.  The  answer  to  a 
misapprehension  introduced  by  "verily,  verily,"  is  not  always  a 
strengthened  assertion,  but  sometimes  a  mere  bringing  out  of 
the  thought  previously  expressed,  as  in  ch.  v.  19.  In  this  place 
it  is  a  bringing  out,  and  is  a  strengthening  only  so  far  as  the 
negative  form  of  the  proposition  imparts  to  it  the  character  of 
reproof.  Several  of  the  ancient  Greek  interpreters,  Calvin,  and 
among  modern  winters,  Schulz,'  and  at  an  earlier  date,  Liicke, 
discover  in  the  words  simply  the  declaration  in  a  stronger  form 
that  the  earthly  appearing  of  Christ  must  be  received  into  inmost 
union  with  the  believer;  the  discourse,  says  Clemens  Alexandri- 
nus,  is  about  the  ivazepvil^eadac  rbu  Xpcazov,  (taking  Christ  into 
the  heart,)  and  Basil,  Ep.  141,  saj'S :  rj  adpz  xal  to  al/ia  to~j  Xpcarov, 
Tiaaa  abzob  -q  piuazcxrj  iTTcdqpica,  (the  flesh  and  the  blood  of  Christ, 
his  whole  mystic  sojourning.)  According  to  Augustine  on  this 
passage,  it  is  the  Church  as  Christ's  body  which  imparts  the 
food  and  the  drink;  Calovius  designates  Eph.  iii.  17  as  parallel. 
In  support  of  this  may  be  adduced  the  fact,  that  v.  57,  58,  cer- 
tainly revert  to  the  thought  in  its  more  general  form  in  v.  51.* 
But  it  would  be  in  conflict  with  the  constant  character  of 
Christ's  replies  in  John,  if  this  reply  did  not  connect  itself 
with  the  sharper  pointing  of  the  thought  at  the  close  of  v.  51. 
It  must  consequently  be  said  that  Christ  designates  his  propi- 
atory  death  as  a  true  food  of  believers,  as  is  acknowledged  by 
Luther,  Melancthon,  Beza,  Calovius,  Grotius,  and  more  recently 
especially  by  Kuinol  and  Lindner,  and  afterward  by  Be  Wette, 

1  D.  Scbulz :  Die  Christl.  Lehre  vom  h.  Abendmahl  nach  dem  Grund-text  des  N. 
T.  Leipzig,  (1824,)  1831,  8vo.     Tr. 

2  Augustine,  who  considered  the  Lord's  Supper  as  an  image  of  the  mj'stical  com- 
munion, directs  attention  to  the  difference,  that  the  spiritual  bread  of  which  our  text 
speaks  imparts  salvation  to  all  who  partake  of  it,  while  the  Lord's  Supper  is 
received  by  some  to  condemnation,  (1  Cor.  xi.  29.) 


The  true  Bread  of  Life.  183 

Liicke,  3d  ed.,  Miiller,  p.  31,  cf.  also,  Sengler,  iiber  das  Abend- 
raahl,  p.  136,  seq.  Already  in  Augustine  we  find  the  remark, 
(not  indeed  on  this  passage,  but  in  his  De  doctrina  Christi,  1. 
iii.  c.  16.) — Edere  ejus  earnem  et  bibere  ejus  sanguinem  .... 
figura  est,  praccipiens,  passioni  dominicre  esse  communicandum 
et  suaviter  atque  utiliter  recondendum  in  memoria,  quod  pro 
nobis  caro  ejus  crucifixa  et  vulnerata  sit ;  (to  eat  his  flesh  and 
drink  his  blood,  is  a  figure  teaching  us  that  we  are  to  have 
communion  in  the  passion  of  our  Lord,  and  are  to  treasure  in 
our  memory  sweetly  and  to  our  use,  that  for  us  his  flesh  was 
crucified  and  wounded.)  Luther:  "  "Wherever  Christ  the  Lord 
is  preached,  that  for  our  sins  he  gave  his  body  to  death,  and 
shed  his  blood  for  us,  and  I  take  it  to  my  heart,  believe  it 
firmly  and  cling  to  it,  that  is,  to  eat  his  body  and  drink  his 
blood.  To  eat,  means  in  this  place,  to  believe :  he  that  believ- 
eth,  also  eats  and  drinks  Christ."  Melancthon  :  Ego  banc  con- 
cionem  nee  de  ceremonia  cocnoe  domini  nee  de  raanducatione 
ceremoniali  intelligo,  sed  sicut  supra  Christus  prsefatus  est  de 
fide,  qua  credimus  placatam  esse  iram  dei  morte  filii,  corpus 
Buum  ofierentis  pro  nobis  et  sanguinem  suum  fundentis — ita 
coetera  de  eadem  fide  intelligo.  (I  do  not  understand  this 
discourse  as  having  reference  to  the  ceremony  of  the  Lord's 
Supper,  or  to  ceremonial  eating,  but  as  the  words  of  Christ 
which  preceded  above  were  about  faith,  whereby  we  believe 
that  God's  wrath  was  propitiated  by  the  death  of  his  Son, 
who  offered  his  body  and  shed  his  blood  for  us — so  I  under- 
stand the  other  words  of  the  same  faith.)  By  this  exposi- 
tion, too,  the  addition  of  the  zb  alfxa  is  more  satisfactorily 
accounted  for,  since  this,  as  the  designation  not  merely  of 
a  natural  death,  but  of  a  supplicium,  expresses  elsewhere, 
and  especially  in  the  institution  of  the  Supper,  the  propiatory 
death,  (Beza.)  The  gradation  now  presents  itself  more  clearly. 
K  the  choice  of  the  word  adpq  before,  was  occasioned  merely 
Dy  the  trope  of  dpro^,  the  addition  of  the  atjia  is  made  in  order 
to  designate  more  properly  and  more  nearly  as  a  nourishment, 
the  bodily  nature  of  the  Son  of  man,  which  was  made  a  sacri- 
fice, and  the  necessity  of  this  participation  is  expressed  in  the 
form  of  a  threatening.  As  in  this  faith,  faith  in  the  propiti- 
tion  ^\hich  is  in  Clirist  has  its  point,  it  mediates  preeminently 


184  Chap.  VL  — v.  59-62. 

the  communion  with  him,  (v.  56,)  and  the  life  everlasting,  (v. 
54.)  After  this  thought  has  been  expressed,  the  more  general 
reference  of  the  believer  to  Christ  is  made  prominent  from 
V.  57. 

We  shall  now  reply  to  the  arguments  by  which  it  is  pro- 
posed to  verify  the  position,  that  this  discourse  must  be  about 
the  Lord's  Supper,  and  inquire,  finally,  if  such  be  the  case, 
which  of  the  three  views  expressed  in  the  Confessions  of  the 
three  Churches,  (Catholic,  Lutheran,  Reformed,)  is  most  favored 
by  its  language.  1)  The  expression  rpcoyeiu  has  no  special 
weight;  the  word  had  lost  the  strict  idea  of  muuducare,  as  we 
can  see  from  John  xiii.  18,  Matt.  xxiv.  38,  Polybius,  Fragm. 
xxxii.  9,  9.  The  trope  is  scarcely  stronger,  when  Wisdom, 
Ecclesiasticus  xxiv.  21,  says  of  herself:  ot  ia&iovxe::  //e  tTc 
■Kttvdaouac  xal  of  Ttivovri^  [is,  en  dc(p:jaooffi,  (they  that  eat  me, 
shall  yet  be  hungry,  and  they  that  drink  me,  shall  yet  be 
thirsty,)  cf.  Prov.  ix.  2,  5,  Eccles.  xv.  3.  2)  On  the  external 
evidence,  dX7^&-j^,  v.  55,  would  be  the  preferable  reading,  though 
in  accordance  with  John's  usage,  we  would  rather  have  antici- 
pated al-q^ivq.  ^ Al-qd^&c,  and  dlTjd-ijz  bring  us,  however,  to  the 
same  sense;  the  latter,  "a  food  which  is  not  deceptive," 
(Luther:  the  true  food,)  which  actually  appeases  the  want; 
the  former,  "a  food  indeed,"  that  is,  a  food  which  imparts  what 
we  would  expect  from  food.  Even  in  his  3d  edition,  Olshau- 
sen  thinks  he  discovers  in  dXrjd^ioz  a  point  of  evidence  for  the 
Lutheran  view;  he  explains  it:  "This  is  no  empty  image,  hut 
it  is  so  to  he  taken  in  truth" — more  correctly:  "it  con'esponds 
in  truth  to  the  idea  of  food."  3)  The  fact  that  in  v.  54  the 
resurrection  is  made  dependent  on  the  participation  of  the 
flesh  and  blood  of  Christ,  would  certainly  accord  with  that 
view  of  the  Lord's  Supper  which  makes  it  the  basis  of  the 
new  corporiety  of  believers.^  But  this  view  (which  has  also 
been  adopted  by  the  Catholic  theologian  Maier,  in  his  treatise 
mentioned  on  v.  21,)  has  more  than  one  diflaculty.  It  is  devoid 
of  a  scriptural  foundation,  (2  Cor.  v.  1,  has  been  without  war- 

1  Luther  (Walch.  Th.  xx.  p.  1094:)  "If  yc  eat  him  spiritually/  through  the  Word, 
he  remains  in  us  spiritually  in  the  soul ;  if  Ave  eat  him  bodily,  he  remains  in  us 
bodily  ;  as  we  eat  him,  he  abides  in  us  and  we  in  him.  For  he  is  not  concocted  and 
changed,  but  Avithout  intermission  he  changes  us,  the  soul  into  righteousness,  the  body 
into  immortality." 


Offense  given  to  the  Disciples.  185 

rant  used  to  sustain  it,)  is  rather,  indeed,  in  conflict  with  the 
view  of  the  resurrection,  which  may  be  deduced  from  Rom. 
viii,  11;  it  leads  to  a  superstitious  use. of  the  Lord's  Supper, 
as  for  example  that  of  the  Greek-Catholic  Church,  which, 
following  authorities  of  the  ancient  Church,  gives  the  Lord's 
Supper  to  infants ;  finally,  according  to  v.  40,  57,  58,  faith  in 
Christ  is  a  cause  of  the  re-awakening,  a  cause  which  in  itself 
is  operative.  4)  Kling  has  thought  that  he  has  discovered  a 
cogent  argument  in  this,  that  adp^  and  at/jta  can  designate  the 
earthly  person  of  our  Lord,  only  when  they  arc  united  in  one 
formula,  but  not  when,  as  is  the  case  here,  they  are  separate. 
But  the  separation  arises,  of  necessity,  from  the  fact  that  Christ 
could  not  say:  adpxa  xat  aifxa  ipayzlv^  {eat  flesh  and  blood.) 
What  we  maintain,  moreover,  is  not  that  al/ia  is  connected  with 
(Tdp^  merely  to  amplify  the  same  idea,  but  rather  to  give 
prominence  to  the  fact  that  the  discourse  turns  on  the  cor- 
poreal nature  given  in  death. — If  the  discourse  were  about 
the  Supper,  the  Catholic  doctrine,  to  close  on  this  point,  would 
liave  the  advantage  in  it;  yet  the  Reformed  doctrine  might 
appeal  to  v.  67,  as  proof  against  a  corporeal  participation  in 
the  Supper. 

Jed  cum.  accus.  in  v.  57,  designates  the  ground,  and  so  far 
the  instrumental  cause,  (cf.  Winer,  p.  389.) — The  locality  of 
this  discourse  is  first  given  here,  probably  to  account  for  the 
appearance  of  the  Disciples  mentioned  v.  60. 

TnE   Offense   given   to    the   Disciples   by  the   preceding 
Discourse. — v.  60-71. 

Y.  60-62.  The  Apostles,  as  we  see  from  v.  67,  are  not  in- 
cluded in  these  [la&r^tat,  nor  can  the  people  who  flocked  thither 
be  meant;  we  are  led  to  the  supposition,  then,  that  they  were 
followers  from  Capernaum,  whom  he  knew  before  this,  and 
who  had  assembled  themselves  there  in  the  synagogue — they 
are  designated  more  particularly  in  v.  66,  as  persons  who  had 
been  in  the  habit  of  attending  Jesus  on  his  journeys  through 
Galilee.  IxXr^phv  pr^im  designates,  in  other  places,  a  rough, 
and  therefore  disagreeable,  word.     In  Euripides  Traj.  inc.  74, 

17* 


186  Chap.  VI.  — v.  62,  63. 

the  cxXtjp  dXr^d^ri  stands  in  antithesis  to  the  fxaX&axa  (ptudvj  Uyto.^ 
In  correspondence  with  this  is  the  question  touto  u//dc  oAavbaX- 
i^ec;  'Axoueiv,  not  "understand,"  (Bretschneider,)  but,  as  dxouaa- 
vrec  auToo,  and  the  genitive  aurou  indicate,  is,  as  in  x.  20,  "to 
listen  to" — they  may  have  stopped  their  ears,  (Acts  vii.  56.) 
From  what  arose  the  offense  ?  Most  of  the  older  writers  sup- 
pose from  the  discourse  in  regard  to  eating  his  flesh  being 
taken  in  a  fleshly  {xara  xopcoXe^iav,)  sense — hence  the  dogmatic 
phrase,  manducatio  Capernaitica — but  we  cannot  regard  these 
multitudes  as  so  coarse  as  this,  (the  question,  v.  52,  prov^es,  at 
least,  that  the  coarse  sensuous  apprehension  of  the  words  seems 
to  them  inadmissible,)  to  say  nothing  of  these  Disciples.  Kuinol, 
Liicke,  De  Wette,  find  then  the  oftense  in  the  declaration  that 
the  Messiah  is  to  die.  But  this  thought  had  been  expressed  only 
mediately,  not  directly,  and  the  expression,  "  who  can  listen  to 
him,"  cannot  well  be  explained  on  this  theory.  Does  not  this 
expression  bear  in  it  an  intimation  that  Jesus  had,  in  their 
opinion,  spoken  with  too  much  assumption  and  severity  ?  We 
find  the  offense  consequently  in  this,  that  Christ,  in  a  different 
form,  has  continually  renewed  the  declaration,  that  there  can 
be  no  life  if  we  do  not  partake  of  him,  his  flesh  and  blood, 
(in  same  way,  Bucer,  Lampe.)  In  the  sentence  broken  off  in 
V.  62,  z'i  ipEivz  is  first  to  be  supplied ;  cf.  the  aposiopesis  in  the 
conditional  sentences,  Luke  xiii.  9,  Mark  vii.  11.  According  to 
several  of  the  critics,  he  means  to  say:  "how  much  easier,  then, 
would  it  be  for  you  to  believe  !"  Erasmus:  "  When  the  sensible 
appearing  is  glorified,  how  easily  then  will  the  misunderstanding 
of  sense  be  removed."  Calvin:  "When  I  shall  be  glorified, 
how  shall  the  offense  which  is  taken  at  my  lowly  appearing 
then  cease;"  Liicke,  2d  ed." — How  shall  the  richer  impartation 
of  the  Spirit  put  aside  the  offense."  But  ovv  shows  clearly 
enough  that  we  have  rather  to  expect  a  strengthening  of  the 
proposition,  (Kling,)  and  must  therefore  add  mentally :  "How 
much  harder  will   that  be  to  you,  how   much   more  offense 

J  Dante  says,  (entirely  in  the  same  sense  as  here,  in  the  sense  of  "  offensive,") 
■when  he  reads  the  -well-known  inscription  on  the  portal  of  Hell:  "il  senso  lor  mi 
e  duro,"  (these  words  import  hard  meaning,)  which  the  commentators  on  the  poet 
explain  by  dispiacevolo,  (unpleasant,  offensive,)  cf.  canto  xxxii.  14. 


Offense  given  to  the  Disciples.  187 

^^^ll  that  give  you  !"  According  to  Meyer,  De  Wette,  Liieke, 
3d  ed.  who  have  fouud  the  olFeuse  in  the  declaration  in  regard 
to  the  death  of  the  Messiah,  this  harder  thing,  which  is  yet  to 
come,  lies  in  the  experience  that  this  death  is  a  mournful  real- 
ity. But  we  are  constrained  to  ask,  whether  the  expression 
dua^acvscv,  connected  as  it  is  with  the  otzod  fju  to  Tcpozepov,  (cf. 
xvii.  5,)  does  not  necessarily  direct  us  to  the  circumstance  of 
his  glorification  ?  That  this  includes  the  reality  of  the  death, 
is  conceded,  yet  on  the  other  hand  again,  it  cannot  be  denied 
that  this  designation  gives  prominence  to  the  side  of  the  glori- 
fication. K  in  V.  60  we  must  find  the  oftense  in  the  emphatic 
and  apparently  arrogant  manner  with  which  Christ  urges  the 
participation  of  his  essence,  the  connection  of  this  question 
would  then  be:  "Do  ye  think  I  have  gone  too  far  in  what  I 
have  maintained  as  to  partaking  of  my  essence,  what  then 
would  ye  think  if  I  entered  on  my  original  glory  ?" — Olshausen 
is  confident  that  the  diflaculty  is  to  be  found  in  the  fact,  that 
the  glorified  corporeal  nature  of  Jesus  was  to  be  taken  up  into 
heaven ;  by  which  mode  of  apprehending  it,  the  reference  of 
the  preceding  discourse  to  the  Lord's  Supper  would  receive 
farther  confirmation,  cf.  however,  against  this  view,  Liieke. 

V.  63.  The  various  significations  of  the  words  Ttpsv/ia  and 
ffdp^  have  also  in  this  verse  led  to  diversity  in  the  ways  of  appre- 
hending them,  which,  however,  fall  into  two  classes,  the  point 
of  division  being  the  question  whether  we  are  to  maintain  in 
the  first  half  of  the  verse  a  reference  to  Christ's  discourses,  or 
only  to  his  person.  On  the  former  supposition :  "  The  Spirit 
must  be  within  the  Disciples,  the  fleshly  sense  can  aid  nothing 
in  understanding;  (Augustine,  Sermo  2,  de  verb,  ap.,  Bucer, 
Melancthon,)  in  the  discourse  the  spirit  is  to  be  retained,  not 
the  outward  covering  of  the  figure,"  (Euthymius,  Mosheim;) 
on  the  latter  supposition :  "  My  earthly  appearing  does  not  in 
itself  give  life,  but  only  in  so  far  as  it  is  the  vehicle  of  the 
Spirit,"  (Cyrill,  Augustine,  Calovius,  Bengel,  with  a  special 
reference  to  the  adp^  in  the  Lord's  Supper,)  and  the  latter  mode 
of  apprehending  it  in  De  Wette,  Liieke,  (3d  ed.)  is  so  modified 
that  in  it  lies  a  consoling  thought  for  the  Disciples,  who  were 
not  willing  to  let  go  of  his  earthly  covering.  But  if  we  are  to 
think  exclusively  of  the  adp$  of  Christ,  would  it  not  have  been 


188  Chap.  VL— v.  64,  69. 

more  specifically  marked  by  the  addition  of  [xou  t^  Besides,  is 
not  the  application  of  the  generic  proposition  to  the  adp^  of 
Christ  particularly  out  of  keeping  here,  where  just  before  so 
great  an  affirmation  had  been  made  about  this  very  adp^  ? 
When  Liicke  remarks :  "The  holy  offering  up  of  the  flesh  was 
essentially  life-giving,  but  not  the  flesh  of  Christ  without  the 
holy  offering"  he  affirms  what  can  only  be  said  conditionally, 
and  here  at  least  that  antithesis  of  the  living  and  of  the 
offered  flesh  is  not  made  prominent.  We  think  the  design  of 
this  addition  is  to  reprove  the  want  of  a  deeper  insight  into  the 
preceding  discourse  ;  the  first  half  of  the  verse  expresses  the 
general  principle,  the  second  makes  a  specific  application  of  it 
to  that  discourse :  "  in  that  discourse  is  spirit  and  life,  but  you 
have  allowed  yourselves  to  be  frightened  away  by  its  form  and 
fashion,  without  penetrating  to  its  depths."  We  have  yet,  in 
regard  to  the  reading,  to  observe,  that  the  testimony  predomi- 
nates for  XeXdX-f]xa,  which  we  would  refer,  not  to  the  instruction 
in  general  which  Jesus  gave,  but  to  the  discourse  he  had  just 
uttered ;  Liicke,  indeed,  supposes  that  then  there  must  be  zaura 
cd  prjuara,  but  is  not  the  idea  sufficiently  defined  by  the  ci 
XtXdXrf/M.  ? 

V.  64,  65.  The  more  faith  there  is  in  the  person  of  the 
Redeemer,  the  more  there  is  of  the  interest  which  goes  with 
faith,  the  more  earnest  will  be  the  striving  to  pierce  into  the 
depth  of  his  words.  That  faith,  however,  that  interest  in  his 
person,  can  spring  alone  from  the  needs  of  a  nature  in  affinity 
with  God  ;  the  Saviour,  therefore,  refers  back  to  v.  44.  As  the 
Evangelist  already  has  in  his  mind's  eye  what  he  designs  men- 
tioning in  V.  70  with  this  observation  in  regard  to  the  glance 
of  the  Lord  which  looks  within  them,  (ii.  25,)  he  interweaves 
a  reference  to  Judas,  on  which  cf.  what  is  said  in  v.  70.  'E^ 
apY7j(:  cannot  well  refer  to  the  beginning  of  his  office  as  teacher, 
John  is  speaking  of  persons  who  attached  themselves  to  the 
Saviour  at  various  dates;  it  means,  therefore,  at  the  beginning 
of  his  acquaintance  with  each  individual. 

1  Those  expositors  say,  indeed,  that  a  generic  proposition  is  the  most  direct  sense. 
Lucke:  "The  absolute  antithesis  of  the  divinely  spiritual,  eternal,  and  of  the 
humanly  sensuous,  transitory  principle  of  life:"  is  not,  however,  this  antithesis  so 
extensive,  and  its  application  to  the  aup^  of  Christ  so  strange,  (and  this  is  a  point 
which  the  expositors  have  first  to  clear  up,)  that  on  this  very  account  we  would 
desire  the  fiov  1 


Offense  given  to  the  Disciples.  189 

V.  66-G9.  That  theec  Disciples  had  hcen  led  to  the  Lord  by 
no  iuward  sense  of  need,  they  prove  by  leaving  him  in  a  way 
which  had  so  little  to  justify  it.  Calvin:  Certe,  quid  utile 
C33et,  optime  tenebat  filius  Dei,  videmus  tamen  eum  non 
cffugere,  quin  multos  ex  suis  offendat.  Ergo  utcunque  multi 
abhorreant  a  pura  doctriua,  supprimere  tamen  earn  fas  non  est, 
(Surely,  the  Son  of  God  knew  best  what  would  be  useful,  yet 
we  see  that  he  did  not  escape  giving  offense  to  many  of  his 
Disciples.  Though  very  many,  therefore,  shrink  back  from  a 
pure  doctrine,  it  is  not  right  to  suppress  it.)  The  question  put 
to  the  Apostles  is  a  question  of  trust,  not  of  mistrust ;  /iij  pre- 
supposes a  negative  reply;  the  ardent  Peter,  of  all  who  are 
addressed,  is  the  first  to  speak.  His  words  show  us  clearly 
what  deep  root,  in  spite  of  all  their  dullness  and  weakness,  the 
word  of  our  Lord  had  taken  in  them,  so  much  so,  indeed,  that 
even  in  xv.  3  he  could  make  the  declaration  that  they  were 
ah'cady  clean  through  the  reception  of  this  word.  The  excla- 
mation, too,  of  Thomas,  John  xx.  8,  gives  evidence  how  the 
depths  of  the  soul  of  that  very  Disciple,  in  whom  reflection  was 
the  predominating  faculty,  had  been  kindled  by  the  ray  of  the 
Spirit  which  emanated  from  the  Saviour.  The  confession  of 
Peter  gives  the  confirmation  to  v.  35.  It  may  be  asked,  whether 
Peter  considered  the  ^mt]  auouco^  only  as  the  future  goal  to  which 
these  words  conducted  the  mind,(Euthymius,  Luther,)  or  whether 
he  would  designate  by  it  the  impression  already  received.  K 
Ave  may  assume  a  retrospective  glance  to  v.  63,  the  latter  is  the 
more  probable  view;  in  the  Jewish  conception,  and  conse- 
quently mostly  in  the  synoptical  Gospels,  the  reference  to  the 
world  to  come  predominates,  and  is,  therefore,  the  more  prob- 
able in  Peter's  mouth.  Faith  here  stands  before  knowing,  as 
in  xvii.  8;  the  reverse  is  the  case  in  x.  38,  1  John  iv.  16 ;  chro- 
nologically the  two  points  are  not  to  be  held  apart  from  one 
another ;  yevwaxsiv,  however,  refers  to  the  entrance  into  the  con- 
sciousness of  an  assurance  which  is  felt,  and  in  so  far  embraces 
in  it  the  evidence,  not  merely  the  outward,  but  also  the  inward 
experimental  evidence :  when  John,  1  Ep,  v.  20,  speaks  of  a 
didi^oca,  7ua  yii^wfTxco/nv,  this  dcdvoca  lies  in  faith.  Instead  of 
u.'oc  To~j  &to~j,  the  external  authority  favors  the  reading  6  dycoz 
Tou  ^eou,  as  in  Mark  i.  24,  Luke  iv.  34 ;  the  further  addition  of 


190  Chap.  Yl.  —  v.  70,  71. 

Tou  (^wvroc  iu  some  Codices,  shows  that  the  original  expression 
had  been  altered ;  thus  u.'oc  ■^soii  has  come  into  the  text  from 
Matt.  xvi.  16:  the  appellation,  "the  hallowed  one  of  God," 
is  more  general  than  that  of  "the  Son;"  in  John  x.  36,  it  is 
paraphrased. 

V.  70,  71.  This  question  of  Jesus  justifies  the  question  wliich 
in  V.  67  had  been  put  with  at  least  a  slight  sound  of  mistrust. 
Even  in  the  narrower  circle  of  the  twelve,  there  was  one  unworthy 
of  trust,  (cf.  xiii.  18.)  It  is  a  question  that  may  be  mooted, 
whether  ocd^oXo!;  means  a  devil  or  an  opposer,  (cf.  Septuag.  Ps. 
cix.  6,  Esth.  vii.  4,  viii.  1.)  In  opposition  to  the  first  view, 
Olshausen  urges  that  the  name  ocd^oAo^  in  the  ISTew  Testament 
is  applied  to  but  one  individual,  the  prince  of  devils,  and  con- 
sequently always  has  the  definite  article ;  from  him  are  dis- 
tinguished ol  dyyelot  abrou,  zd  dac[x6vca,  "his  angels,"  "the 
devils."  But  the  meaning  "enemy,  opposer,"  which  Luther, 
Grotius,  Liicke,  De  Wette,  also  prefer,  gives  too  languid  a  sense, 
and  requires,  moreover,  some  addition  to  define  it  more  par- 
ticularly. Olshausen,  3d  ed.,  has  consequently  abandoned  this 
view,  and  gives  this  explanation :  "  Is  there  not  among  you, 
who  are  the  children  of  God,  one  who  is  Satan  himself?  [der 
Satan")  (?)  As  Christ  in  Matt.  xvi.  23,  to  Peter  as  the  organ  of 
Satan,  gives  the  name  Satan  itself,  he  can  surely  the  more 
readily  here  give  to  Judas,  who  has  abandoned  himself  to 
Satanie  influence,  the  name  of  a  devil,  that  is,  a  man  resting 
nnder  diabolic  influences.  It  is  not,  to  be  sure,  involved  in 
this  designation  itself,  that  Jesus  at  this  period  already  foresaw 
that  Judas  would  betray  him,  but  this  does  follow  from  the  in- 
timation of  John,  v.  64.  But  in  advance  we  must  concur  in  what 
Keander,  1.  c.  625,  (transl.  379,)  says  :  "But  it  need  not  appear 
strange  to  us  if  John,  after  so  many  proofs  of  the  superhuman 
prescience  of  Jesus,  attributed  to  the  indefinite  intimations  of 
Christ,  given  by  him  to  Judas  in  order  to  make  him  know 
himself,  more  than  they,  strictly  taken,  contained."  Add  to 
this,  that  John  is  the  very  writer  in  whom  that  i^  o.pyfj(;  cer- 
tainly cannot  be  urged,  as  if  it  must  imply  in  the  very  strictest 
sense  the  beginning  of  acquaintance.  We  indeed  maintain 
what  has  not  hitherto  been  brought  to  notice,  that  the  question 
of  Christ  himself  contradicts,  as  also  does  xvii.  12,  the  strict 


Offense  given  to  the  Disciples.  191 

reference  to  the  first  beginning.  "WTien  our  Saviour,  to  ^vit : 
expresses  his  surprise,  or  his  displeasure,  that  in  that  little 
circle  chosen  by  himself  there  should  be  a  dtd^oXo^,  does  not 
this  show  that  it  was  unexpected  and  painful  to  him  ?  To  this 
is  to  be  added,  that  Judas,  in  ch.  xvii.  12,  is  included  in  the 
number  of  those  whom  the  Father  had  drawn  to  the  Son. 
AVith  entire  propriety,  therefore,  we  may  concur  in  the  view 
presented  especially  by  Ullmann,  (Siindlosigkeit,  4th  ed.  p. 
140,  Sinless  Character  of  Jesus,  translated  by  E.  A.  Park,  in 
Biblic.  Cabinet,  vol.  xxxvii.  Edinburgh,  T.  Clark,  1841.)  Kern, 
Xeander,  that  he  had  brought  with  him  a  susceptibility  for  the 
good.  "We  are  not  to  forget  that  when  the  Saviour  made  this 
declaration,  Judas  had  been  more  than  a  year  in  association 
with  him :  it  was  in  intercourse  with  Jesus  which  we  know 
must  have  had  a  general  tendency  to  mature  the  moral  decision 
of  his  Disciples,  that  the  impure  element  in  his  nature  was 
brought  out.^ 

1  Lucke :  The  gei-m  of  evil  as  little  as  the  germ  of  good,  could  escape  the  eye  of 
the  Holy  One.  But  not  until  this  critical  moment,  when  so  many  were  forsaking 
Lim,  docs  his  prophetic  eye  distinctly  see  in  Judas  the  enemy  that  is  to  be.  At  an 
earlier  date  he  had  spoken  nothing,  probably  had  thought  nothing,  in  regard  to  this 


CHAPTER  VII. 


Jesus  goes  to  the  Feast  of  Tabeknacles. — v.  1-9. 

V.  1.  On  this  verse  Strauss  and  Bauer  Lave  believed  that 
they  could  establish  the  important  position,  that  John  knew 
only  of  Judea,  as  Matthew  knew  only  of  Galilee,  as  the  proper 
theatre  of  the  active  life  of  our  Lord.  This  view  certainly  has  a 
good  deal  of  plausibility,  which  vanishes,  however,  if  we  may 
be  allowed  to  suppose  that  Jesus  did  not  repair  to  the  feast 
but  at  the  time  of  the  Passover,  ch.  vi.  4 ;  this  observation  then 
serves  to  complete  what  has  been  said  in  vi.  4.  The  multitudes 
who  had  been  miraculously  fed  continue,  after  the  discourse  in 
ch.  vi.,  their  journey  to  the  capital,  but  Jesus  does  not  go  with 
them  at  this  time  ;  the  supposition  that  he  did  not  visit  the  last 
Passover  is  favored  by  the  fear  of  snares  which  our  Lord  con- 
tinued constantly  to  feel,  furthermore  by  the  demand  which  his 
brethren  urged,  finally  by  the  allusion  in  v.  21  to  the  miracle 
which  he  had  wrought  at  the  Passover  before  the  last.  The 
omission  to  visit  the  leading  feasts  is  not  entirely  inconceivable, 
as  the  character  of  the  demand  on  the  part  of  his  brethren  in  v. 
3,  and  the  question  xi.  56,  allow  us  to  infer. 

Y.  2-5.  The  feast  of  Tabernacles — in  commemoration  of 
the  journey  through  the  desert,  and  of  the  abode  in  tents  during 
that  time,  observed  also  as  a  festival  of  the  first  gathering  and 
of  the  vintage — is  called  by  Josephus  ^  lop-r]  rj  kycoizar-q  xac 
fjiZ'fiazTj,  (the  most  holy  and  the  greatest  of  festivals ;)  by  Plu- 
tarch, sympos.  iv.  6,  2,  lopzr)  fityiazr)  xac  TsXtcozdrrj  zwv  Wouoacojv, 
(the  greatest  and  most  perfect  festival  of  the  Jews.)  It  occur- 
red in  October,  with  which  consequently,  it  corresponds  to 
allow  about  six  months  for  the  sojourn  of  Jesus  in  Galilee. 
"^o  mention  is  made  of  a  subsequent  return  to  Galilee ;  accord- 

(192) 


Jesus  goes  to  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles.  193 

iug  to  X.  22,  Jesus  remains  in  the  metropolis  during  the  feast 
of  the  dedication  also,  then  goes  to  Pera^a,  x.  40,  and  in  ch.  xi. 
again  appears  in  Bethany.  The  starting  out  on  this  journey  is 
therefore  to  be  arranged  in  the  harmony  with  Luke  ix.  51. — 
If  the  brethren  appear  in  this  place  as  unbelieving,  this  is  in 
accordance  with  Mark  iii.  21,  and  with  the  fact  that  on  the 
cross  Jesus  committed  not  to  them,  but  to  John,  the  care  of  his 
mother;  yet  after  the  resurrection  they  appear  with  the  Apos- 
tles as  believers,  Acts  i.  14.  In  relation  to  the  question, 
which  seems  inextricably  involved,  in  regard  to  these  brethren 
of  Jesus,  nothing  can  be  inferred  from  the  passage  before  us 
but  this :  that  no  one  of  the  doeXipoi  could  have  belonged  to  the 
Apostles,  that  consequently  James,  the  son  of  Alpheus,  who 
was  one  of  the  Apostles,  (Matt.  x.  3,)  cannot  be  regarded  as 
doeXifoz  ro~j  x'jploo,  though  Ilug,  Kuhn,  (Giessener  Jahrbb.  fiir 
Theolog.  (1834,)  II.  1,)  still  insist  that  he  may  have  been,  resting 
on  the  fact  that  tzktzs'jzcv  designates  feebler  and  stronger  degrees 
of  faith.^  In  this  narrative  of  the  unbelief,  in  fact  of  the  scorn 
of  our  Saviour's  nearest  connections,  there  lies  a  very  import- 
ant argument  against  the  imputing  to  John,  that  he  made  it 
a  rule  always  to  be  glorifying  Christ — neither  an  unhistorical 
legend,  nor  a  Disciple  giving  play  to  his  fancy,  would  have 
invented  this  trait.  "We  would  be  compelled  to  concede 
its  psychological  correctness,  did  it  rest  on  no  other  ground 
than  that  of  the  proverb,  iv.  44,  to  wit:  that  it  is  so  much 
harder  to  acknowledge  an  extraordinary  mission  to  mankind, 
in  the  case  of  one  whose  natural  development  we  have  wit- 
nessed. This  conduct  of  the  brethren  of  Jesus  becomes  yet 
more  intelligible,  if  we  accept  what  Schaf,  in  his  work  cited  in 
the  note,  says,  p.  90,  seq.  in  regard  to  the  internal  development 
of  James.  As  the  piety  of  James  partook  of  a  strict  Old 
Testament  character,  we  may  easily  believe  that  he  clung  to  a 
conception  of  the  Messiah  with  which  the  manner  of  Christ's 
appearing  was  in  conflict.  He  expected  him  to  wield  a  power  in 
civil  matters,  to  make  a  brilliant  display  of  himself  in  the  central 
city  of  the  theocracy.     That  his  Avorks  had  been  done  in  a 

1  The  whole  question,  and  the  passages  of  our  commentary  with  reference  to  it 
are  examined  in  full,  in  a  very  valuable  treatise  by  Schaf,  the  latest  which  has 
appeared :  "  das  Verhaltniss  des  Jakobus,  Bruder  des  Herrn,  zu  Jakobus  Alphai," 
Berlin,  1842,  p.  50,  seq. 

18 


194  Chap.  VH.  — v.  6-9. 

corner  of  Galilee,  awakened  distrust  in  their  character,  a  dis- 
trust to  which,  perhaps,  the  ec  has  reference,  though  it  does  not 
necessarily  involve  a  doubt  of  the  mere  fact  of  their  having  been 
done,  (v.  23.)  He  demands  then,  not  without  irony,  that  Jesus 
should  appear  in  the  metropolis — and  here  in  the  interest  of 
apologetics,  it  is  worthy  of  notice  that  our  Evangelist,  in  these 
words  makes  an  allusion  to  an  important  activity  on  the  part  of 
Jesus  in  the  working  of  miracles  in  Galilee,  though  he  has 
given  no  account  of  it.  The  fia&y^rac  can  hardly  be  other  than 
those  who  were  in  the  metropolis ;  we  must  explain  as  one  of 
the  instances  of  the  inexactness  in  the  style  of  John,  (see  on 
iii.  35,  vi.  36,  vii.  17,  xix.  12,)  that  this  is  not  expressed  more 
precisely. — As  regards  the  construction,  v.  4,  Liicke  observes : 
"  It  agrees  well  with  the  more  polished  Greek  style,  as  auroc  is 
the  impressive  resumption  of  the  subject  in  oudec^,"  (Matt.  xii. 
50,  Mark  xv.  43 ;)  this  usage  of  abro^  is,  to  be  sure,  common 
enough,  but  not  the  structure  of  the  sentence  with  xac  ^yjrec  xtX, 
for  which  the  Greek  would  have  substituted  the  participle  ;  on 
the  other  hand,  the  sentence  in  Hebrew  can  be  in  correspond- 
ence with  it,  cf.  on  \  Ewald,  Hebr.  Gr.  p.  252.  'Eu  Tzappr^ma,  cf. 
xi.  54.  Luther :  [the  corresponding  German  phrase,]  auf  dem 
Plane,  (on  the  field.)  [nappr^aca,  not  "frankness,"  (Beza, 
Meyer,)  but  "publicity,"  v.  10,  11,  54.] 

V.  6,  7.  Great  as  is  the  want  of  respect  shown  in  the  words 
of  his  brethren,  the  reply  of  the  Redeemer  displays  the  wonted 
character  of  elevation.  The  older  expositors,  Chrysostom, 
Lampe,  and  again  recently  Bauer,  Ebrard,  in  v.  6  and  8, 
Bengel  only  in  v.  8,  interpret  6  xacpdi;  6  i/ioi;  of  the  time  of  the 
passion.  When  against  this  view  the  recent  critics  urge  the 
difficulty,  that  the  conformity  between  the  two  parts  of  the 
sentence  in  v.  6  would  thus  be  destroyed,  Bauer  might  be 
justified  in  maintaining  that  it  is  sufficient,  if  the  parts  of  the 
antithesis  have  a  point  of  contact  in  the  thought,  that  he  and 
they  appear  publicly  before  the  world,  that  our  Lord  may 
nevertheless  have  regarded  the  fact  that  the  trial  of  his  passion 
had  not  yet  come,  as  the  reason  why  he  would  not  appear ; 
such  a  reference,  certainly,  imparts  additional  significance  to 
the  proposition  in  v.  8,  cf  v.  20.  But  on  the  other  side  the 
question  arises,  if  Christ  would  not  go  up  at  the  beginning  of 


Jesus  goes  to  the  Fka.-t  of  Tabernacles.  195 

the  feast,  "because  the  time  of  his  passion  had  not  yet  come," 
would  he  have  gone  up  at  the  midst  of  it?  Woukl  there  not 
lie  in  the  words  a  declaration,  that  he  would  no  more  visit  a 
festival  until  the  last  Passover?  We  have,  consequently,  to 
explain  the  phrase  6  xacpb(;  TTz-XTjniorac  or  Tzdoeazc,  as  in  ii.  4. 
(Calvin,  Piscator,  Calovius,)  "  The  proper  time  to  do  a  thing," 
or  in  specie,  "The  proper  time  to  go  to  the  feast."  Thei/  have 
no  need  to  he  so  careful  in  the  selection  of  the  time,  for 
kindred  does  not  repel  kindred,  for  thei/,  as  Luther  expresses 
it,  "  are  hale  fellows  well  met,  they  are  hand  in  glove  with  the 
high  priests." — "K  I,"  continues  Luther,  "would  speak  what 
the  Papists  like  to  hear,  I  would  be  very  glad,  too,  to  take 
lodgings  with  the  Bishop  of  Magdeburg  or  at  Rome."  Christ 
in  words  of  reproof  places  himself  over  against  the  world,  (iii. 
19,  xvii.  14.) 

V.  8,  9.  As  regards  the  reading,  the  first  xumr^v  in  v.  8  is, 
according  to  the  authorities,  to  be  omitted ;  on  the  other  hand, 
a  majority  of  the  authorities  give  before  ava^ulvco  the  o'j-co  of 
the  received  text,  (Knapp,  Lachmann.)  Despite  the  external 
authorities,  however,  this  reading  of  the  received  text  is  suspi- 
cious, as  there  is  no  difiiculty  in  understanding  how  it  may 
have  arisen  from  an  explanatory  or  apologetic  gloss,  the  object 
of  which  was  to  remove  from  Christ's  lips  the  apparent 
untruthfulness — the  fickleness  of  purpose ;  the  reproach  of 
fickleness  resting  on  ohy.  as  the  reading,  had  been  brought 
against  Christ  by  Porphyry  already,  (Jerome,  Cont.  Pelag.  ii. 
17.)  Li  vi.  17,  also,  where  accuracy  would  require  ouT-.oi 
instead  of  ohx^  we  have  in  the  Cod.  B  D  L  the  explanatory 
o'j-w.  If  ohx  is  to  be  regarded  as  the  authenticated  reading, 
how  can  the  Saviour  be  vindicated  from  the  charofe  of  a  want 
of  truthfulness  ?  Chrysostom,  Liicke,  Olshausen,  urge  the  strict 
idea  of  the  present  in  ava'^atvco^  which  involves  the  vuv,  (I  go 
not,  i.  e.  yet.)  Meyer  supplies  the  words :  "  With  you,  in  the 
caravan  ;"  the  solution  of  Wolf,  De  Wette,  is  better,  that  this 
o'jy.  is  limited  by  the  o'j~co  which  follows.  Ohy.  certainly  occurs 
frequently  in  inexact  usage  where  ohruo  should  be  the  word,  as 
in  Mark  xi.  13,  Ezra  iii.  6,  cf.  Mark  vii.  18  with  Matt.  xv.  17. 
At  an  earlier  period  this  mode  of  relieving  tlie  difficulty 
seemed  to  me  to  be  incompatible  with  the  words  £:V  •:'5^v  lopxr^v 


19G  Chap.  Vn.— v.  10-16. 

rawDjiv,  {tills  feast,)  which  seem  to  be  antithetical  to  journeys 
to  other  feasts ;  it  also  seemed  to  me  that  the  ozt  b  xaipbz  xtA. 
must  refer  to  the  time  of  the  passion,  in  which  case  we  would 
be  the  more  obliged  to  suppose  that  he  declined  going  to  the 
feast  altogether.  The  former  difficulty  expressed  by  me  has 
been  adopted  by  Bauer,  and  pushed  to  the  last  extreme.  My 
opinion  now,  however,  is  that  it  is  capable  of  the  following 
solution  :  "At  other  times  Jesus  invariably  appeared  at  the 
beginning  of  the  feast;  here  he  declares  that  he  will  not  yet  go 
to  this  feast,  because  the  proper  time  had  not  yet  come ;  if  he 
came  unexpectedly,  and  did  not  appear  until  in  the  midst  of 
the  feast,  the  disturbance  would  be  less."  That  the  fear  of 
disturbance  was  not  groundless,  is  seen  in  the  picture  given  us 
of  the  state  of  feeling  at  Jerusalem. 

The    Controversial  Discourses   or  Jesus  in  the  midst  of 
THE  Feast  or  Tabernacles. — v.  10-36. 

v.  10-13,  Had  Jesus  appeared  in  the  caravan  with  his  con- 
nexions, and  the  people  of  his  country,  attention  would  have 
been  directed  to  him  from  the  beginning.  On  ojc,  De  Wette 
correctly  observes:  "It  marks  the  subjective  character  of  the 
opinion,  persons  might  say  it  was  done  in  secret,  or  they  might 
not,  just  as  they  chose  to  regard  it ;  it  is  not  used  as  it  is  i.  14." 
'iJxsTvoc,  without  mentioning  his  name,  contemptuous,  like  the 
Latin,  iste ;  so  in  viii.  10,  Matt,  xxvii.  73.  [jN'ot  exactly  con- 
temptuous, but  as  a  designation  of  an  absent  person  whom 
they  all  know.]  'Jya&o^,  after  the  old  classic  usage;  "good  for 
its  purpose,  honest,"  so. here  in  antithesis  to  Tildvo^,  (Matt, 
xxvii.  63.)  The  authorities  remain  in  a  state  of  irritation, 
from  the  time  of  the  Passover  in  ch.  v.  in  consequence  of  the 
words  of  reproof  in  which  Jesus  had  addressed  them,  (cf.  on 
V.  16,)  so  that  they  are  cherishing  the  purpose  of  murdering 
him,  (v.  19,  25.) 

Y.  14-16.  The  feast  lasted  eight  days ;  on  the  fourth  con- 
sequently, when  he  was  no  longer  expected,  Jesus  made  his 
appearance.  "We  are  not  told  whether  his  Disciples  accompa- 
nied him,  or  had  gone  on  before  with  his  brethren.  In  either 
case,  whether  he  went  with  them  or  was  entirely  alone,  he 


Jesus  at  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles.  197 

could  journeywitbout  attracting  the  same  attention  as  if  he 
had  gone  with  the  caravan.  lie  appears  in  the  temple  at  once 
— in  what  part  of  it?  "Was  it  in  the  5i*^n'?n  ri'3,  which  was  in 
the  great  colonnade  which  encircled  the  fore-courts,  where  we 
suppose  the  scene  in  Luke  ii.  46  to  have  occurred,  or  was  it  in 
the  fore-courts  ?  To  the  latter  supposition,  viii.  20,  Mark  xii.  41, 
John  X.  23,  would  lead  us.  Among  the  hearers,  according  to  v. 
20,  32,  we  are  to  suppose  there  were  scribes  and  persons  from  the 
populace.  "Whether  these  ' loodaioc  belonged  to  the  former,  or 
to  the  latter  class,  cannot  indeed  be  determined  with  certainty, 
yet  the  calm  manner  of  the  question  may  be  regarded  as 
favoring  the  idea  that  it  was  put  by  persons  from  the  populace.^ 
The  fact  that  Christ,  v.  19,  charges  on  those  whom  he.  ad- 
dresses, a  desire  to  put  him  to  death,  does  not  prove  the  reverse, 
for  he  is  speaking  to  the  multitude  in  the  mass.  Christ's 
teaching  in  the  temple,  and  this  marveling  on  the  part  of  the 
jieople  in  particular,  bring  up  the  question :  whether  it  was 
allowed  to  every  one  to  appear  in  the  character  of  a  public 
teacher  ?  The  reverse  is  shown  by  Matt.  xxi.  23.  From  the 
Talmud,  we  learn  that  no  man  could  appear  as  a  teacher  who 
had  not  for  some  years  been  ToSn  and  i^n  (collega,)  of  a  Rabbi, 
then  followed  the  act  of  promotion,  {\5W■^,  Dpj  i^ooaiav  ?Mfi,3duecii,} 
cf.  the  thorough  treatise  by  Facht,  de  eruditione  Judaica,  Gott. 
1742,  and  Jost,  Gesch.  des  Judenthum,  vol.  3,  p.  108.  "We 
certainly  do  not  know,  indeed,  whether  so  early  as  the  time  of 
Jesus  these  matters  were  regulated  in  this  way,  but  under 
Hillel  and  Schammai,  the  Rabbinical  schools  had  already  in 
all  essential  respects  taken  their  shape.  /^oa//^az-«,  not  "the 
Holy  Scriptures,"  (Syriac,  Luther,  Meyer,  Bretschneider,  lex. 
3d  ed.)  otherwise  it  would  be  qualified  by  hf)d,  but  "  learning," 
(Acts  xxvi.  24;)  if  the  j^^ople  said  this,  the  appellation  is  still 
more  easily  accounted  for,  for  to  the  people  every  religious 
discourse  appeared  to  give  evidence  of  such  a  learning  as  the 
Rabbins  possessed. 

^  Mejer,  who,  like  most  of  the  critics,  supposes  the  scribes  to  put  the  question, 
and  translates  :  "  IIow  comes  it  that  this  man  understands  -writings,  witliout  having 
learned  them?"  knows  not  what  motive  to  assign  for  a  question  so  devoid  of  pas- 
sion, except  this  :  "This  question  was  designed  to  divert  the  interest  oC  the  hear- 
ers from  the  matter  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus,  and  to  diminish  respect  for  him  per- 
sonally, as  one  who  was  unlearned.'"  The  first  aim  would  have  been  entirely  too 
subtle,  the  hitter  would  not  have  been  presented  in  this  form  of  discourse. 

18* 


198  CiiAP.  VII.  — V.  IG,  17. 

V.  16,  17.  The  antithesis  is  that  between  a  self-couscions- 
ness  which  is  isolated  from  God  and  one  which  is  in  union  with 
him,  so  that  certainly  no  more  is  affirmed  in  these  words  than 
what  even  a  prophet  might  have  uttered ;  but  prophets  have 
but  single  illuminations,  while  Christ  speaks  of  his  entire 
doctrine ;  he  never  speaks  and  acts  from  his  own  isolated  self- 
consciousness,  (v.  28,  viii.  16,  28.)  Herein  there  also  lies  in- 
directly a  setting  of  them  right  in  relation  to  that  question 
of  surprise ;  for  he  who  knows  himself  to  be  one  with  God 
immediately,  does  not  attain  to  truth  by  mediated  modes,  and 
consequently,  therefore,  neither  by  the  gradual  way  of  reflec- 
tion nor  by  what  other  men  impart  and  teach.  On  chap.  iii. 
34,  was  shown  that  the  Tiiimecv  of  God  is  the  internal  mani- 
festation of  God.  In  what  then  consists  that  criterion  of  the 
divine  character  of  his  doctrine,  which  our  Lord  here  fur- 
nishes? As  we  who  are  Christians  are  wont  to  regard  the 
operation  of  the  doctrine  of  Christ  upon  us  as  an  evidence  of 
the  most  universal  character,  that  it  is  of  God,  the  attempt  has 
been  made  in  various  forms  to  verify  in  these  words,  also,  an 
allusion  to  this  power  of  Christian  truth  to  form  its  own  testi- 
mony. Those  theological  systems  which  regard  Christ's  teach- 
ings as  preeminently  moral  teachings,  as  the  giving  of  moral  law, 
might  understand  this  ^iXyjim  rob  &sod  as  meaning  this  divine 
law,  and  might  find  the  criterion  of  its  divinity  in  the  perfec- 
tion imparted  to  the  spirit  by  following  that  law,  (thus  Semler,^ 
Lange,  Herder,  Kuinol,  and  also  Ebrard.)  But  to  conceive  of 
Christ  after  the  Socinian  manner  as  a  new  lawgiver,  is  to  ignore 
his  character  as  a  Redeemer,  and  if  we  cannot  conceive  of  his 
dcda-^Tj  as  uo/xo::,  it  cannot  well  be  designated  by  the  expression 
TO  ^sArjua  Tou  §s.o~j.     Proceeding  from  the  juster  perception,  that 

1  Mca  doctrina,  says  Semler,  divinam  voluntatem  optime  describit.  Quicunque 
igitur  experiri  vult  ipse  animumque  omnino  ailjicit  rebus  illis,  quas  commendo,  etc. 
(My  doctrine  best  exhibits  tlie  divine  will  Whoever,  therefore,  wishes  to  test  it, 
must  by  all  means  apply  his  mind  to  the  things  which  I  commend,  &c.)  The 
Socinians  do  not  appear  to  have  explained  it  in  this  way,  at  least  Crell  (0pp.  Ex.  T. 
iii.  p.  80,)  follows  the  exposition  which  ice  have  preferred.  In  Episcopius,  the 
Arniinian  divine,  who  elsewhere  is  wont  to  give  an  acute  exposition  of  tho  ethical 
expression,  I  have  found  no  exposition  of  this  expression.  (Such  a  passage,  how- 
ever, is  to  be  found  in  Episcopii  Opera  Theolog.  Amstel.  MDCL.  1.  3.  "Sic  loh. 
Cap.  vii.  17.  Siquis  velit,  &c.  id  est  facere  quod  secundum  rectam  rationem,  aut  legis 
MosaiccB  prescriptum  fieri  decet,  &c."  The  whole  in  illustrating  the  position  that 
"  probitas  "  is  essential  to  a  student  of  theology.     Tr.) 


Jesus  at  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles.  199 

faith  in  Christ  is  the  grand  feature  of  Christianity,  Augus- 
tine, Luther,'  Melancthon,  Lampe,  Storr,  Tittmann,  Weber, 
(opuscul.  conini.  iv.)  referring  to  vi.  29,  (Ernesti  refers  to  vi. 
40,)  have  understood  by  the  divine  dilr^na  xaz"  ^^o-/^v^  the 
demand  of  faith  in  Christ:  where  this  demand  is  satisfied, 
conviction  of  the  divinity  of  the  doctrine  is  produced.  And 
indeed,  several  writers  again  have  understood  the  ytuaxrxscv,  of 
the  proof  from  its  operation,  the  experimental  evidence;  by 
Augustine,  however,  tlie  idea  of  the  intellectual  yvcoai:;  in  con- 
tradistmction  to  Tzcazc::  is  urged,  and  consequently,  from  this 
expression  also  is  deduced  the  significant  principle,  "nisi  cred- 
ideritis,  non  intelligetis,"  (unless  ye  believe,  ye  cannot  under- 
stand.) If,  however,  the  expression  7Toie7v  to  d^sXr^ixa  zou  dzoo 
were  meant  to  designate  specially  faith  in  Christ,  we  would  have 
the  phrase  authenticated  by  its  use  elsewhere  in  this  distinct 
sense,  but  not  even  in  vi.  29  is  it  to  be  found.  Nor  could  such 
a  faith  as  this,  a  faith  adopted  by  way  of  trial,  be  the  true 
faith ;  it  would  be  the  fides  carbonaria,  and  a  mere  assensus 
intellectualis.  On  the  other  hand  let  it  be  noticed,  that  in  the 
kindred  passage,  v.  38-44,  and  in  viii.  42,  47,  the  earnest,  moral 
and  religious  striving  of  piety  of  an  Old  Testament  type  is 
represented  as  a  medium  through  which  men  are  led  to  faith 
in  Christ ;  that  exposition  then  of  this  passage  is  least  forced 
which  by  the  d-klr^im  zo~j  d-zo~j  understands  the  acknowledged 
will  of  God,  first  of  all  revealed  in  the  Old  Testament,  (Chiy- 
sostom,  Erasmus,  Calvin,  Bucer,  John  Gerhard,  and  the  recent 
critics;)  this  view,  besides,  is  favored  by  the  connection  in  v.  18, 
19.  The  principle  which  lies  at  the  basis  of  the  w^ords  of 
Christ,  and  which  recurs  in  various  forms  in  the  discourses  of 
Jesus  as  given  by  John,  is  that  significant  principle  of  Plato, 
-6  o/jLuco'^  zTit  ojuoiuj  Yjdszai,  (like  delights  in  like ;)  il  faut  aimer 
les  choses  divines  pour  les  connoitre,  (divine  things  must  be 
loved  in  order  to  be  known,)  says  Pascal,  i.  3.  By  using  t^e ?<y 
7:o:e7u  instead  of  idu  zc^  ^ocfj,  the  wdiole  weight  is  still  more 
definitely  laid  on  the  bent  of  the  will.  If  now  Christ  urges 
the  earnestness  of  moral  striving,  of  the  fulfilling  of  the  law;, 

1  "If  ye  would  do  that,  (listen  to  me,)  and  not  make  resistance,  the  Holy  Spirit 
■would  enlighten  and  tench  you  that  the  will  of  the  Fatlier  is  in  Christ.  This  is  the 
beginnincr,  if  a  man  would  be  learned  in  divine  things :  the  beginning  is,  to  believe  the 
word  of  God." 


200  Chap.  Vn.— v.  18-23. 

the  expression  can  be  so  taken  as  to  guide  us  to  precisely  the 
same  affirmation  which  Paul  makes  in  regard  to  the  vo//6c  as  a 
Tzacbaytoyo^  ec^  Xptarov :  "  He  who  earnestly  strives  to  satisfy  the 
law  of  God,  will  be  led  to  a  knowledge  of  his  inability,  and 
thereby  be  led  to  the  faith  that  my  doctrine,  and  specially  the 
doctrine  of  the  atonement,  is  of  God."  But  as  the  v6//oc  in 
this  sense  is  not  spoken  of  in  John,  since  rather,  in  the  par- 
allels cited  from  John,  the  law  is  designated  as  mediating  to 
faith  in  the  Gospel,  inasmuch  as  its  contents  in  their  spirit  are 
similar  to  the  contents  of  the  doctrine  of  Jesus,  this  side  is  to  be 
held  in  this  passage  also ;  cf.  also,  iii.  21,  viii.  47.  It  is  yet  to 
be  noticed,  that  the  pronoun  is  wanting  with  dcda.i7^^ ;  this  may 
be  explained  by  a  designed  antithesis  between  dcdayr^^  and 
7:oce7v,  cf.  however,  what  is  said  on  iii.  34.  Luther  takes  the 
article  as  demonstrative:  ^Hhis  doctrine." 

Y.  18.  We  have  lirst  to  look  at  the  form  in  which  the  sen- 
tence is  constructed.  There  is  no  conformity  between  the  two 
members  of  the  sentence,  cf.  the  observation  on  ch.  v.  41. 
The  first  half  embraces  the  major,  the  second  the  minor  and 
the  syllogism ;  the  syllogism,  however,  which  should  be  ob-^  d.f 
kauTou  Xa.lu,  presents  that  thought  in  another  form.  He  who 
through  a  mediate  activity  has  attained  to  a  doctrine,  gives  the 
credit  of  it  to  his  own  activity  and  his  own  acuteness ;  he  who, 
on  the  other  hand,  comes  to  a  knowledge  of  the  truth  in  vir- 
tue of  his  immediate  unity  with  God,  refers  back  throughout 
to  God.  As  herein  full  freedom  from  self-seeking  is  revealed, 
Christ  had  already,  ch.  v.  44,  declared  that  the  basis  of  unbe- 
lief in  him  is  the  striving  after  our  own  glory,  which  makes  us 
incapable  of  acknowledging  the  divine  in  such  a  manifestation 
as  is  free  from  self-seeking.  Here  Christ  attributes  to  a  char- 
acter thus  free  from  self-seeking,  the  predicates  of  truthfulness 
and  of  moral  purity.  'Aor/ca,  might  indeed,  like  "^j^.^y,  designate 
the  theoretic  side,  error,  (Grotius,)  so  that  the  same  thought 
would  be  expressed  positively  and  negatively ;  but  no  necessity 
exists  for  taking  it  in  this  way.  According  to  the  general 
opinion,  v.  18  directly  connects  a  second  proof  with  what  has 
preceded.  Yet,  with  Schott  and  Neander,  we  might  regard 
this  verse  as  continuing  the  thought  expressed  in  v.  IT.  "He 
who  is  free  from  ambition,  and  makes  the  will  of  God  the  rule 


Jksus  at  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles.  201 

of  his  conduct,  will  ackiiowleclgc  the  divinity  of  my  doctrine, 
for — he  will  recognize  in  me  also  one  who  is  not  striving  after 
his  own  glory,  and  who  is  therefore  true."  Thus  the  transition 
would  correspond  with  that  which  takes  place  in  passing  from 
ch.  V.  38-40,  to  V.  41.  But  this  connection  of  the  thoughts  has 
too  little  to  mark  it,  and  leaves  too  much  to  be  read  into  the 
text.  Yet  so  much  may  be  true,  that  the  thought  in  v.  18  is 
not  connected  with  the  other  in  a  merely  outward  manner,  but 
is  brought  in  by  this,  that  the  holy  principle  of  the  doctrine  of 
Christ  finds  expression  also  in  that  relation  which  he  shows  he 
sustains  to  the  Father. 

V.  19,  20.  The  hearers  are  designated  as  those  who  do  not 
make  even  the  doing  of  the  will  of  God  their  law,  entirely  in 
accordance  with  ch.  v.  45,  as  we  interpret  it,  cf  also,  viii.  37, 
seq.  As  a  proof  of  this,  the  extremest  transgression  of  the 
law  is  adduced,  the  murderous  designs  of  the  officials ;  but  the 
multitude  of  those  who  arc  at  the  feast  (cf  the  antithesis,  v. 
25,)  regard  this  suspicion  as  so  extravagant,  that  they  attribute 
it  to  the  inspiration  of  the  Spirit  of  lies.  There  is  no  necessity 
indeed,  for  supposing  that  in  the  dacnoviC,^a&ac,  the  imvjza&ai  is 
involved,  though  the  latter  is  certainly  regarded  as  a  conse- 
quence of  the  former,  (x.  20.)  In  ch.  viii.  48,  there  probably 
lies  a  retrospective  reference  to  this  reproach. 

V.  21-23.  Christ  considers  the  rancor  occasioned  by  the 
healing,  ch.  v.,  as  the  principal  cause  of  the  enmity  of  the 
rulers.  We  can  hardly  imagine  that  he  would  have  referred  to 
that  occurrence  which  took  place  at  the  Passover  before  the 
last,  had  he  also  been  present  in  the  metropolis  at  the  last 
Easter  festival,  vi.  4.  Yet  this  argument  cannot  be  considered 
as  decisive.  For  might  not  Jesus — even  if  other  signs  no  less 
striking:  had  succeeded  that  miracle — mio-ht  he  not  cro  back  to 
the  beginning  of  that  public  hostility  ?  Let  it  be  remembered, 
too,  that  in  that  miracle  there  was  the  additional  offense  that 
it  took  place  on  the  Sabbath,  and  that  it  is  this  very  oflense  to 
which  prominence  is  here  given.  The  Vulgate,  Euthymius, 
and  others,  begin  v.  22  with  oca  tooto,  which  however  cannot 
be  justified;  we  must  construe  it  with  Saufid^^eeu,  cf.  Fritzsche 
on  Mark  vi.  6,  and  Rev.  xvii.  7.     dau/M^eiv  has  the  accessory 

idea  of  terror,  like  non  and  OiIdZ,  which  means  horrore  per- 


202  Chap.  Vn.— v.  23-27. 

fundi,  obstupescere,  Septuag.  Eccles.  v.  7,  Ecclesiasticus  xxvi. 
11.  Chrysostom :  rouziffve,  rapdvTsa&e,  ix&opo^tca&e,  (that  is, 
are  troubled,  are  disquieted.)  The  reasoning  of  Christ  gives 
evidence  of  that  acute  use  of  the  Old  Testament  in  his  dis- 
courses, of  which  we  find  a  number  of  instances  in  the  synop- 
tical Gospels,  for  example  in  Matt.  xii.  5.  The  circumcision 
must  be  performed  on  the  eighth  day,  (Lev.  xii.  3 ;)  if  that  day 
comes  on  the  Sabbath,  this  rite,  though  it  brought  so  much 
labor  with  it,  the  washing,  binding,  applying  the  plaster,  &c., 
was  to  be  attended  to  on  that  day,  despite  the  sanctity  of  the 
Sabbath.  The  parenthetic  proposition  in  v.  22,  is  not  designed 
to  claim  for  the  law  of  the  Sabbath  a  higher  authority  than 
for  circumcision,  (Chr3^sostom,)  but  is  to  be  regarded  merely  as  a 
limitation  having  reference  to  the  antiquity  of  the  rite.  Kai 
expresses  the  sequence  of  the  action,  "and  so:"  Luther  trans- 
lates it  "noch,"  equivalent  to  "  und  doch" — (yet,  and  still.) 
''Ovbixoc,  Mcovahoic,  refers,  according  to  our  interpretation,  to  the 
iuTo?:^,  enjoining  circumcision  on  the  Sabbath,  (let  James  ii.  10, 
be  weighed,  however;)  according  to  Bengel,  Semler,  it  refers 
to  the  iuToXj  of  the  Sabbath,  and  I'ua  /xj  means  :  "  so  that  it  is 
not,"  "without  being."  But  thus  the  inference  loses  in  point, 
and  Iva  without  necessity  is  regarded  as  equivalent  to  oiare,  cf. 
however,  ch.  v.  20,  vi.  50.  The  question  now  arises,  however, 
what  is  the  antithesis  in  okovl  It  seems  to  rest  upon  the 
assumption  that  circumcision  insured  medical  advantages, 
(cf.  Winer,  Reallex.)  But  is  not  Bauer  correct  in  the  remark, 
that  circumcision,  as  the  law  contemplated  it,  is  a  purely  reli- 
gious symbol  ?  Would  we  not,  therefore,  rather  suppose  a  refer- 
ence to  the  symbolic  spiritual  meaning  of  it  ?  But  if  this  be 
so,  the  antithesis  does  not  present  itself,  nor  does  it  even  when, 
'with  Augustine,  Bengel,  Olshausen,  we  refer  oXou  to  body  and 
soul ;  still  we  hold  fast  to  the  religious  significance  of  circum- 
cision as  a  sign  of  the  covenant,  but  derive  from  uyi^  Tzottcv  the 
general  idea,  and  interpret :  "Ye  transgress  the  law  to  perform 
a  sacred,  beneficent  work,  on  that  one  portion  of  man ;  will 
you  be  angry  at  me,  when  I  perform  a  work  with  the  same 
characteristics,  on  the  entire  man?"  By  the  want  of  distinct- 
ness in  the  antithesis,  we  might  be  inclined,  with  Kliug,  (Ben- 
gel, in  Ms  German  translation,  presented  the  same  view  before 


Jesus  at  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles.  203 

him,)  to  lay  the  emphasis  on  ufirj,  aud  to  give  prominence  in 
TZEpczifjLvztv  to  the  injiiction  of  the  tvound,  but  the  expression  is 
not  TztpiTSfivsev  at  all,  but  TiSpaofirjv  Xap^dvsiv,  which  utterly  pre- 
cludes any  prominence  of  the  idea  of  wounding.  On  the  other 
side,  as  circumcision  was  accompanied  by  healing,  some  have 
been  inclined  to  bring  out  this  point  from  the  rrspiTOfirju  Xap^. 
so  that  the  healing  of  one  member  and  the  healing  of  the 
entire  man  are  contrasted,  (Cyrill,  Lampe,  Meyer,)  but  this  also 
is  inadmissible.  Not  to  enlarge  on  this  point,  the  position  of 
the  uycTj  iizo'tr^aa  docs  not  allow  the  emphasis  to  be  laid  on  it. 

V.  24.  We  might  be  tempted  to  give  to  xpli^siv  xav  oipcv  the 
sense  ctf  izpbacoTzov  lap^avetv^  (Lampe,  Bretschneider,  Lex.  3d 
ed.)  as  well  because  of  the  antithesis  xr^v  dcxacav  xptaiv,  as 
because  of  the  connection:  "Judge  righteously,  and  not  in 
such  away  as  to  excuse  a  transgression  in  yourselves,  and  con- 
demn it  in  me."  "  Oipa;,  indeed,  means  the  same  as  Trpoffoorrov, 
but  the  distinct  phrase  Xapjd.  oipcv  is  wanting  here.  Kaz  6(piv 
consequently  can  only  designate,  like  viii.  15,  the  judgment 
based  upon  the  outward  appearance,  and  thus  the  righteous 
judgment  is  that  which  is  in  accordance  with  the  internal 
essence.  This  internal  essence  is  the  intention:  in  their 
transgression  of  the  Sabbath,  the  intention  respecting  another 
positive  commandment;  on  Christ's  part  in  the  miracle  of 
healing,  the  intention  of  pitying  love,  the  fulfilling  of  the  most 
primitive  of  all  commandments.  The  article  r-yy  designates 
either  the  righteous  judgment  in  this  case,  or  the  absolute  rule 
of  a  righteous  judgment.  Bengel :  judicium  verum  unum  est; 
hsec  vis  articuli,  (true  judgment  is  one  ;  this  is  the  force  of  the 
article.) 

V.  25-27.  The  residents  of  Jerusalem  were  aware  of  the 
determination  of  the  rulers  to  put  Jesus  to  death.  The  con- 
jecture which  they  express,  seems  to  be  serious,  not  ironical. 
Yet  they  confute  that  opinion  of  their  own,  by  the  assumption 
that  the  Tco&eu  of  the  Messiah  is  not  to  be  known,  whereas  they 
do  know  the  tzo&zv  of  Jesus.  Do  they  mean  by  Tzo&ev,  the 
birth-place  or  the  parents?  From  vi.  42,  we  Avould  suppose  the 
latter,  and  in  reply  to  the  question  n)p  \x  there  follows  in  the 
Hebrew  a  statement  of  the  j^'^^'^ntage,  2  Sam.  i.  13.  Let  it  be 
observed,  however,  that  according  to  ix.  29,  the  Tto&tv  embraces 


204  Chap.  VH.— v.  28-34. 

the  characteristics  in  general,  (cf.  also,  xix.  9.)  We  may 
therefore  give  as  the  sense :  "  "We  are  acquainted  with  him,  we 
know  what  sort  of  a  person  he  is !"  In  addition,  the  answer 
of  Christ  refers  to  the  character  of  his  person  as  well  as  to  his 
origin.  Their  opinion,  as  it  would  seem,  has  its  basis  in  the 
passage  of  Daniel,  (cf.  also,  Mai.  iii.  1,)  in  which  the  Messiah 
appears  in  the  clouds.  The  question  may  indeed  be  put,  whether 
his  birth  in  Bethlehem,  and  his  descent  from  David,  did  not 
designate  clearly  enough  whence  he  came ;  but  not  unfre- 
quently  the  popular  consciousness  allows  opinions  which  con- 
tradict each  other,  to  stand  side  by  side  unharmonized,  at 
least  we  do  not  know  how  to  harmonize  them ;  in  v.  "$2,  some 
of  these  very  people  (probably  the  more  intelligent  ones,)  speak 
of  Messiah's  descent  from  David.  I  had  directed  attention  to 
the  fact  that  the  Jew  in  Justin  Martyr,  Dial.  c.  Tr.  p.  226  and 
336,  ed.  Colon,  expresses  a  similar  thought;  Liicke  acknowl- 
edges that  such  is  the  case  in  the  former  passage ;  Olshausen, 
3d  ed.  and  Bauer,  deny  it.  I  believe  that  I  must  myself  con- 
fess, that  these  ideas  can  hardly  be  said  to  be  related,  yet  they 
show  what  manifold  shapes  the  anticipation  of  the  Messiah 
took  in  the  popular  mind. 

V.  28,  29.  With  a  loud  voice,  consequently  with  special 
emphasis,  (vii,  37,  xii.  44,)  Jesus  speaks  of  the  contrast  between 
what  he  knew  of  himself  and  what  thei/  knew  of  him.  In 
these  words,  as  in  viii.  14,  23,  the  majesty  and  the  indignation 
of  a  king  whom  his  subjects  refuse  to  recognize,  find  utterance. 
They  know  not  his  nature,  (Matt.  xi.  27,)  how  can  they  know 
his  origin.  The  double  xai  is  to  be  taken  as  in  vi.  36.  The 
words  are  certainly  not  to  be  regarded  as  a  simple  confirmation 
of  their  knowing  his  earthly  origin,  as  De  Wette  supposes,  but 
as  holy  and  earnest  irony.  KoJ  before  drz  i/iaurou  must  be 
regarded  as  antithetical:  "and  yet."  The  unity  with  God,  of 
which  self-consciousness  assures  him,  forms  the  antithesis  to 
the  earthly  tto&su,  cf.  on  vii.  17,  iii.  34.  ^Ak?M,  equivalent  to 
imo.  \4):r^&cv6::  either  in  the  sense  of  genuine,  (i.  9,)  as  Liicke, 
De  AVette,  take  it,  or  synonymous  with  oi-^?>--^'c,  as  most  critics 
take  it,  in  accordance  with  the  use  of  d.)jj&cv6z  in  (iv.  37,)  xix. 
35,  Rev.  iii.  14,  xix.  9, 11.  Luther :  "  Though  I  preach  the  truth 
to  you  over  and  over  again,  I  must  yet  lie  to  you.     Our  Lord 


Jesus  at  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles.  205 

God  miTst  ill  the  world  always  be  a  learner  and  a  liar,  and  let 
himself  be  mastered  by  its  reason.  Wherefore,  Christ  com- 
forts himself  here :  'Though  I  must  be  before  you  as  a  liar, 
nevertheless  God  sent  me,  and  I  know  that  he  is  true.'"  K 
with  the  first  named  expositors  we  interpret :  "  He  who  sends 
me  is  a  genuine,  true  sender,"  that  is,  he  who  alone  properly 
can  send,  the  sense,  indeed,  is  very  appropriate,  but  this 
thought  would  have  been  expressed  in  a  different  way :  6 
fOjjdcvo^  Tii/i-iov,  or  in  some  similar  manner.  We  therefore 
take  d.).rj&cv6^  as  equivalent  to  d?.r^&ij^,  and  find  the  explanation 
of  this  title  in  the  living  witness  to  himself,  which  the  Saviour 
bore  within  him ;  from  this  same  witness  proceed  the  words  ov 
xtX.  which  follow,  expressing  the  contrast.     So  also  does  v.  29. 

V.  30,  31.  Some  of  the  magistrates  desire  to  arrest  Jesus  at 
once,  but  their  courage  fails  them.  "S^pa  here  means  the  grand 
point  of  time  in  the  life  of  our  Lord,  the  time  of  his  passion 
and  death,  (xvii.  1.)  Liicke  :  "This  is  the  religious  pragmatism 
of  history,  with  which  no  pious  mind  can  dispense.  At  the 
same  time  we  must  not  forget  that  it  is  John  who  more  than 
any  of  the  other  Evangelists  unveils  the  natural  connection 
and  the  train  of  the  development  of  that  great  hour,  as  it  now 
hastens,  and  now  lingers,  and  has  thus  skillfully  united  the 
religious  view  of  the  hour  of  Jesus  with  the  intellectual."  It 
may  be  asked,  whether  the  faith  to  which,  according  to  v.  31, 
many  of  the  people  attained,  was  a  faith  in  Christ's  work  as  a 
prophet,  or  in  his  work  as  Messiah.  It  seems  to  us  that  the 
former  alone  is  the  correct  view,  (Maldonatus,  Heumann,) 
though  most  critics  declare  themselves  for  the  latter,  cf.  how- 
ever, also,  V.  40.  How  perverse  it  is  to  impute,  as  has  become 
the  fashion  in  our  day,  so  much  design  to  the  Evangelist ;  how 
little  he  aims  at  placing  in  the  foreground  the  working  of 
miracles,  is  manifest  also  from  the  cursory  manner  in  which  he 
here  makes  mention  of  the  great  number  of  the  miracles. 
Besides,  one  might  also  most  believe  that  these  people  out  of 
the  d^?.o^  were  persons  who  had  come  from  Galilee  to  the 
feast,  (v.  20,)  at  least  these  would  most  naturally  have  ex- 
pressed themselves  in  this  way. 

V.  32-34.  \lfj'/czptt<;,  tiie  heads  of  the  different  classes  of 
priests,  dpy^oi^ztz  zajv  Tzazpiwu  rcou  hpioiv,  (1  Chrou.  xxiv.  6,  2, 

19 


206  Chap.  VIL  — v.  32-36. 

Chron.  xxxvi.  14 ;)  (papiaaloc  is  the  name  of  the  party,  not  of 
the  calling,  the  apizpuc^  could  also  have  been  embraced  under 
the  term ;  since  there  were  also  Sadducees  in  the  Sanhedrim, 
(Acts  xxiv.)  it  may  perhaps  be  merely  intimated  that  the  per- 
secution proceeded  from  the  party  of  the  Pharisees  alone, 
(v.  48,)  or — may  the  ipapcaatoc  designate  the  popixoc  and 
■jrpa/i/jiaTeT^,  who  under  those  names  do  not  appear  in  John  ?^ 
(Cf.  in  the  division  which  is  not  genuine,  viii.  3,  there  indeed 
the  Ypapp.arei(;  are  mentioned  together  with  the  Pharisees.)  It 
is  not  clear  whether  the  Pharisees  who  heard  what  was  said, 
made  report  to  the  Sanhedrim,  who  then  gave  the  order  to 
arrest  Jesus,  or  whether  they  made  the  arrangement  themselves 
on  the  spot.  But  v.  45  is  decisive  for  the  former  view,  on 
which  verse  it  is  to  be  noted,  that  the  Sanhedrim  usually 
convened  in  the  temple  itself,  in  the  rin^n  nstjfS,  the  stone 
chamber  between  the  fore-court  of  the  Gentiles  and  the  inner 
court,  (tr.  loma,  f.  25.)  We  see  that  Jesus  knew  of  their 
determination.  In  explaining  the  difficult  expression  which 
occurs  here,  we  must  have  in  our  eye  the  parallel  passage, 
viii.  21,  and  the  partial  repetition  of  the  expression  before  the 
Disciples,  in  xiii.  33.  The  different  interpretations  divide  them- 
selves first  of  all  into  two  classes :  according  to  the  one,  ^TjzeiU 
designates  an  inimical  seeking,  the  laying  of  a  snare,  (Origen, 
Grotius,  Crell,)  according  to  the  other  it  designates  a  seeking 
out  in  order  to  obtain  help,  (Chrysostom,  Erasmus,  Calvin, 
Zwingle,  Meyer.)  Had  the  former  been  the  case,  a  different 
structure  of  the  sentence  would  be  looked  for,  perhaps  puxpbv 
xac  ^rjTij(T£Te  fis  xai  obf^  zuprjaere,  (xvi.  17 ;)  the  expression, 
"seek  and  not  find,"  has  in  it,  moreover,  something  of  the 
character  of  a  phrase,  and  serves  to  designate  a  seeking  of  aid 
when  the  right  time  has  passed  away,  cf.  Amos  viii.  12,  Prov. 
i.  28,  Hos.  ii.  7,  Isa.  Ixv.  1.  To  this  is  to  be  added  that  in 
viii.  21,  instead  of  do-j(^  zbp-qa.  we  read  dTzod^avEca&s.  iu  tJj  dpapTiO. 
■jpioi',  and  that  in  xiii.  33,  !^rjTe7u  cannot  be  taken  at  all  in  an 
inimical  sense.  Does  it  mean  then,  a  seeking  from  a  sense  of 
penitence  and  of  longing  ?  (John  xix.  37.)  In  chap.  viii.  28, 
xii.  32,  xvi.  10,  conversions  are  spoken  of  which  were  to  take 

1  Cf.  Winer,  Reallex.  at  the  word  Schriftgelelirte ;  Gfrorer,  das  Jahrhundert  des 
Heils,  1  Abth.  p.  140,  seq. 


Jesus  at  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles.  207 

place  in  consequence  of  the  lifting  up  of  Christ ;  and  Eusebius, 
Ilist.  Eocles.  iii.  35,  tells  us  that  in  consequence  of  the  fearful 
judgments  of  God  on  Jerusalem,  /rjpcoe  ix  Tzepaofjirjc:  (innumer- 
able persons  of  the  circumcision,)  became  believers.  But  of 
these  it  could  not  be  said,  that  they  had  not  found  him,  that  tJieT/ 
had  died  in  their  sins,  (viii.  24.)  Under  the  //i,  consequently, 
we  would  have  to  regard  as  contemplated,  not  the  person  of 
Christ,  but  the  Messiah  in  the  Jeivish  sense :  "  Then  shall  ye 
seek  that  Messiah,  whom,  in  my  person,  ye  have  despised," 
(Luke  xvii.  22,  Matt.  xxiv.  23,)  thus  Zwingle,  Lampe,  Kuinol, 
Neauder,  1.  c.  p.  531,  (Trans,  p.  294.)  But  the  lyio  and  xiii. 
83  are  against  this  view.  Nothing  remains,  then,  but  as  Theo- 
dorus  Heraclese,  Maldonatus,  Grotius,  De  AVette,  Liicke,  3d 
ed.,  have  done,  to  regard  the  expression  as  a  formula  to  desig- 
nate the  complete  separation,  the  entire  disappearance,  (Ps.  x. 
15,  xxxvii.  10,  Isa.  xli.  12;)  in  this  case,  indeed,  we  must  also 
again  reduce  the  contents  of  otzoo — zX&eiv  simply  to  the 
thought  of  the  absolute  separation,  (by  Christ's  death  and 
ascension,)  a  view  in  which  viii.  21  is  specially  in  the  way,  but 
which  is  favored  by  xiii.  33.  It  must,  consequently,  be  said, 
that  on  the  one  side  Christ,  from  his  self-consciousness,  speaks 
of  the  exaltation  on  which  he  would  then  enter,  an  exaltation 
above  all  that  men  could  attempt  against  him,  and  on  the  other 
side  warns  them  to  use  the  time  with  which  they  were  yet 
favored,  (xii.  35.)  Without  any  necessity,  IsTonnus  and  The- 
ophylact  already,  have  the  reading  elfxc  instead  of  el  fit,  ("I  go," 
instead  of  "I  am ;")  the  formula  or.cj  dfii  is  also  found  in  xii. 
36,  xiv.  3,  xvii.  24,  the  present  tense  serves  merely  to  give  it 
the  vividness  of  a  thing  present:  "where  I  then  am." 

V.  35,  36.  *  The  question  proceeds  from  the  arrogance  of 
hatred,  as  in  viii.  22.  Jiaa-oftd  is  taken  by  most  as  concrete, 
for  ot  3ca<T-apiuT£^,  the  genit.  "^EXkjvoDv  then  points  to  the  place 
of  the  dispersion,  more  correctly,  however,  is  it  interpreted  />er 
meton.,  the  place  of  those  who  are  scattered  among  the  Gentiles, 
(Syriac,  Cyrill,  Grotius,)  as  the  e^c  also  shows,  thus  Judith,  ch.  v. 
21,  (19,)  ix  T.  diaaTzopd^,  oh  dcsazajr/^aav  ixe7,  (from  the  place 
where  they  were  scattered.)  They  ask,  whether  Jesus  will 
betake  himself  to  those  Jewish  congregations,  in  order  from 


208  Chap.  VIL  — v.  37-39. 

thence  (as   the  Jews  would   not  accord   him  their  faith,)  to 
operate  upon  the  Gentiles  ?^ 

Discourse  on  the  Last  Day  of  the  Feast  —  Transactions 
IN  THE  Sanhedrim. —  v.  37-52. 

V.  37-39.^  The  feast  of  Tabernacles  lasted,  strictly  speak- 
ing, seven  days,  (Lev.  xxiii.  34,  Deut.  xvi.  13,)  yet  in  the  law 
there  is  mention  already  made  of  an  eighth  day,  (Lev.  xxiii. 
36,  cf.  Nehem.  viii.  18,  Numb.  xxix.  35.)  On  the  question 
whether  the  seventh  or  eighth  day  was  the  great  day  of  the 
feast,  (cf  xix.  31,)  the  evidence  is  wanting;  according  to  the 
current  tradition  of  the  Rabbins,  the  pouring  of  the  water,  to 
which  there  seems  to  be  an  allusion  here,  took  place  only  on 
the  seven  days  of  the  feast,  yet  Rabbi  Juda,  tr.  Sukka,  iv.  1,  9, 
speaks  also  of  a  pouring  of  water  on  the  eighth  day;  and  as  in 
]^umb.  xxix.  35,  and  in  Josephus,  Archseol.  iii.  10,  4,  the  eighth* 
day,  together  with  the  first,  is  designated  as  a  special  day  of 
rest,  and  of  the  festal  assembling  of  the  congregation,  this  may 
be  regarded  as  the  iizjal-q  ^jfj.ipa.  A  universal  jubilee  of  the 
people  (Plutarch  calls  it  a  bacchanalian  one,)  and  various  pom- 
pous ceremonies  took  place  at  this  feast,  so  that  the  Rabbins 
were  accustomed  to  say :  "  The  man  who  has  not  seen  these 
festivities,  does  not  know  what  a  jubilee  is,"  cf.  H.  Majus,  dis- 
sert, de  haustu  aquarum.  On  every  day  of  the  feast,  at  the 
time  of  the  morning  sacrifice,  a  priest  brought  into  the  fore- 
court, in  a  golden  vessel,  water  from  the  spring  of  Siloah,  which 
rises  within  the  mount  on  which  the  temple  stood,  and  poured 
it,  mingled  with  the  sacrificial  wine,  into  two  bowls  which 
stood  upon  the  altar,  and  in  which  there  was  an  opening  by 
which  it  made  its  escape.  During  the  performance  of  this 
rite,  the  priests  caused  trumpets  and  cymbals  to  be  sounded, 
and  the  words  of  Isaiah  xii.  3,  were  sung:  "  With  joy  shall  we 
draw  water  out  of  the  wells  of  salvation."     The  exegetical 

1  Neander,  1.  c.  p.  531,  supposes  that  the  Jews  may  have  begun  to  surmise  the 
tendency  of  Christ's  teaching  to  embrace  mankind  universally. 

2  Cf.  on  this  division,  the  Dissertation  of  Nosselt,  Opuscul.  diss.  iii.  p.  48 :  Flatt. 
Opusc.  diss.  ii. 


Last  Day  of  the  Feast.  209 

tradition  has  ascribed  a  special  Messianic  reference  to  these 
words  of  the  prophet,  which  he  in  foct  does  utter  in  a  song  of 
thanksgiving,  having  reference  to  the  times  of  the  Messiah. 
Jonatlian  trausLates  those  words  'Tn3D  Nnrja  mn  isVn  f'Vapn; 
K',p"lV,  "ye  shall  receive  the  new  doctrine  with  joy  from  the 
elect  righteous  ones."  Later  Rabbins  call  this  festivity,  nnrDi:' 
mjpn,  (joy  of  the  law,)  because  the  water  was  a  symbol  of  the 
divine  grace.  It  is  assumed  then  by  the  expositors  with  entire 
probability,  that  the  Redeemer  cried  thus,  just  at  the  point  of 
time  when  the  priest  was  carrying  that  sacred  water  through 
the  fore-court,  and  the  people  were  abandoning  themselves  to  a 
jubilant  jo}^  at  the  sight  of  this  symbol.  It  is  noted  by  John, 
that  on  this  occasion  Jesus  stood,  (he  usually  sat  when  he 
taught,)  and  with  a  loud  voice  cried  in  the  midst  of  the  multi- 
tude.— The  exalted  words,  testifying  of  the  highest  self-con- 
sciousness, announced  that  in  him  was  actually  imparted  what 
was  there  expressed  in  symbol.  We  have  an  instance  of  a 
similar  exalted  testimony  within  himself,  ch.  viii.  12.  He  rep- 
resents here  also  the  sense  of  the  need  of  redemption  as  the 
condition  of  participation  in  the  blessings  which  proceed  from 
him,  and  represents  faith  as  the  organ  by  which  that  participa- 
tion is  eflected.  KocXia  like  *]P5  and  :i";p.,  for  that  which  is 
within  man,  in  general,  cf  Ecclesiasticus  xix.  22,  Prov.  xx.  27 ; 
in  Arabic,  also,   .Jij  stands  for  ^_/^,  "body  "  for  "heart" — yet 

would  Christ  have  used  this  expression,  and  not  rather  simply 
have  said  i?  abroo,  if  he  had  not  designed  an  allusion  to  the 
xodia  of  the  golden  vessel  from  which  the  water  was  poured  out? 
(Bengcl.) — Though  Christ,  iv.  14,  declared  that  the  water  of 
life  which  he  should  give  would  be  a  self-dependent  spring 
within  the  heart,  yet  this  expression  goes  beyond  that;  on 
others  also  shall  the  streams  of  this  spring  pour  themselves 
forth.  (Chrysostom.)  The  reference  to  the  Old  Testament 
creates  a  difficulty ;  a  passage  literallj'-  corresponding  is  not  to 
be  found,  though  abundance  of  water  is  in  various  forms  pro- 
mised, as  an  image  of  energies  which  impart  life,  cf  on  the 
one  side,  Isa.  xliv.  3,  Iviii.  11,  on  the  other,  the  passages  which 
speak  of  a  spring  of  water  which  is  to  go  forth  from  the  tem- 
ple, Joel  iii.  23,  (iv.  18,)  Zech.  xiv.  8,  Ezek.  xlvii.  1-12.— As 
regards  now  the  interpretation  given  by  the  Evangelist,  he  has 

19* 


210  Chap.  VH.  — v.  39-49. 

taken  ptbaouai  as  the  future  absolute,  on  the  ground  that  not 
until  Christ  was  glorified  was  the  Spirit  to  be  poured  out  upon 
the  Disciples,  (Luke  xxiv.  49,  Acts  ii.  33 ;)  in  consequence  of 
this  interpretation,  when  Christ  appealed  to  the  Old  Testament, 
John  thought  of  Joel  iii.  1.  What  are  we  to  think  then  of 
this  explanation  which  the  Evangelist  furnishes  ?  First  of  all, 
if  the  water,  as  in  iv.  14,  designates  metaphorically  energies  of 
life,  such  had  certainly  already,  through  our  Lord's  words  as 
their  medium,  been  conferred  on  the  Disciples,  (iv.  14,  vi.  68, 
V.  25.)  Is  not  such  a  communication  of  life  also  a  communi- 
cation of  the  Spirit?  It  certainly  is,  for  the  language  is:  "My 
words  are  Spirit  and  life.''  But  Jesus  himself,  not  only  in  the 
passages  we  have  cited  from  Luke  and  Acts,  but  also  in  John, 
ch.  xiv.  and  xvi.,  designates  the  sending  of  the  Spirit  as  a  thing 
of  the  future.  If  now  quickening  be  a  necessary  consequence  , 
of  the  impartation  of  the  Spirit,  it  would  be  entirely  in  accord- 
ance with  the  fact,  if  the  Disciples  dated  the  proper  fulfilling 
of  the  promise  from  the  time  of  the  subsequent  outpouring  of 
the  Spirit,  and  so  much  the  more  since  with  that  event  the  life 
first  began  to  flow  forth  from  the  Disciples.  If  the  ouitco  -qv  is 
to  be  explained  by  reference  to  the  outpouring  of  the  Spirit, 
the  Evangelist  is  not  giving  a  declaration  in  regard  to  the 
existence  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  but  is  speaking  of  his  manifesta- 
tion in  his  operations,  on  which  account,  so  far  as  the  fact  is 
concerned,  the  addition  of  otdofiivov  (Lachmann,)  by  a  num- 
ber of  authorities  is  correct ;  in  Acts  xix.  2,  el  tivzujio.  cLjcov  iaziv 
is  also  probably  to  be  taken  in  the  same  way.  But  the  ques- 
tion then  rises,  why  the  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  dated 
from  that  period,  though  he  had  wrought  already  under  the 
Old  Testament,  and  during  the  life  of  Christ  ?  Does  the  ex- 
pression designate  merely  the  strength  of  the  distinction  as  to 
the  amount  of  activity  and  power?  Thus  especially  it  is  re- 
garded by  the  Lutheran  interpreters,  who  use  it  in  maintaining 
the  similarity/  between  the  operations  of  the  Spirit  under  the 
Old  and  under  the  New  Covenant.  Or  is  there  also  a  distinc- 
tion in  the  character  of  the  outpouring  ?  Certainly  the  latter. 
The  Holy  Spirit  in  the  specific  Christian  sense  is  that  spirit 
which  was  wrought,  in  virtue  of  the  unio  mystica,  with  the  glori- 
fied Christ,  the  new  spirit  of  adoption  which  rests  on  the  con- 


Last  Day  of  the  Feast,  211 

sciousness  of  tlie  finished  propitiation,  the  spirit  in  the  power  of 
which  tlie  redeemed  man  knows  himself  more  and  more  as  the 
organ  of  that  Christ  who  works  in  him  and  through  him.  This 
Spirit  coukl  descend  upon  the  Disciples  only  after  the  propitia- 
tion had  actually  been  accomplished,  and  Christ  spiritually 
glorified.  lie  then  made  the  Church  the  body  for  his  manifes- 
tation, (Eph.  i.  23,)  and  in  it  continued  his  work  upon  earth. 
The  faith  of  the  Disciples  then  no  longer  had  its  centre  in  the 
sensible  manifestation  of  Christ,  but  in  his  spiritual  internal 
testimony,  in  the  unio  mystica,  in  the  strength  of  which  a  Paul 
could  now  speak  (cf.  John  xiv.  19,  20,)  of  the  doxcfirj  z.  )mXoi)vto^ 
iv  ifioi  Xpcazou,  (2  Cor.  xiii.  3,)  of  the  xazepfd^ta&ac  zoo  Xpcazdij 
oc  i/jLoi),  (Rom.  XV.  8.)  There  first  was  verified,  that  the  living 
water  which  he  had  given  them  had  becbme  a  self-dependent 
spring  within  them,  (iv.  14.) 

V.  40^4.  The  expression  6  kdyo:;  allows  us  to  assume,  that 
in  what  has  preceded  the  Evangelist  has  merely  given  us  the 
theme,  as  it  were,  of  a  discourse  of  Christ.  On  6  7Tpo<p:jzi^<;,  see 
i.  21.  Fdp  in  the  question  v.  41,  is  to  be  explained  by  the 
presupposition  of  a  negative  reply,  Winer,  p.  417.  The  objec- 
tion, V.  42,  resting  on  the  popular  opinion  that  Jesus  was  of 
Galilean  origin,  is  urged  by  the  more  intelligent  ones,  who 
had  in  their  eye,  Micah  v.  1,  Isa.  xi.  1,  Jer.  xxiii.  5.  Under 
the  ztv£^,  it  may  be  that  ^ve  are  to  understand  those  very 
[fTri^pizai,  who  had  mingled  themselves  among  the  people. 

V.  45-49.  The  ofiicers  return  to  the  authorities,  to  wit:  in 
the  assembly  of  the  members  of  the  Sanhedrim,  and  confess 
that  they  have  been  held  back  from  any  act  of  force  by  the 
transcendent  power  of  Christ's  words.  It  was,  indeed,  particu- 
larly the  higher  authority  with  which  Christ  appeared,  by  which 
they  were  struck  and  paralyzed,  (Matt.  vii.  29.)  Besides,  as 
Augustine  says:  Cujus  vita  fulgur,  ejus  verba  tonitrua,  ("his 
words  are  thunder,  whose  life  is  lightning.")  If  now,  in  perus- 
ing the  words  of  Christ,  the  reader  is  led  to  confess  what  those 
hearers  then  confessed,  there  lies  in  this  the  true  proof  of  the 
inspiration  of  the  Evangelists,  to  wit :  the  proof  of  the  fidelity 
of  their  narration.  The  arrogance  of  these  hierarchical  doctors 
of  the  faculty  is  characteristic,  who,  because  of  their  knowledge 
of  the  Scriptures,  regard  themselves  as  the  sole  rule  of  the 


212  Chap.  Vn.—v.  50-52. 

truth;  on  the  way  in  which  this  arrogance  had  gradually 
strengthened,  see  Gfrorer,  das  Jahrh.  des  Heils.  1  Abth.  p.  240, 
seq.  The  unlettered  populace  were  called  y^i^n  dj;,  (people 
of  the  land,)  and  fp.t?,  (worms,)  and  in  the  Talmudic  tr.  Pirke 
Aboth.  (ii.  5,)  which  contains  many  expressive  sayings  of  the 
Eabbins,  we  have  the  words  Tpn  ]'"!Nn  D;r  t«^,  "  he  that  hath  not 
studied  is  never  pious." 

Y.  50-52.  Pleasingly,  and  at  the  same  time  in  a  mode 
psychologically  correct,  are  presented  the  tokens  of  the  grow- 
ing faith  of  I^^icodemus.  Still  fettered  in  part  by  that  same 
fear  of  man  which  had  allowed  him  only  with  caution  and  by 
night  to  come  to  Jesus,  he  confines  himself  to  requesting  a 
procedure  in  accordance  with  the  principle  of  legal  rectitude, 
(Deuter.  xix.  15.)  To  axouar]  and  ypoj,  Meyer  and  De  Wette 
supply  "the  law  itself,"  which  is  personified  in  the  Judge; 
were  the  judging  the  thing  spoken  of,  there  would  be  no 
objection  to  this  view,  but  as  the  thing  spoken  of  is  the  judicial 
hearing,  the  verbs  must  be  taken  impersonally  or  6  xpaij^  be 
supplied  from  the  connection,  Winer,  p.  339.  To  their  blinded 
passion  this  love  of  rectitude  on  the  part  of  Nicodemus  is 
at  once  a  suspicious  matter;  they  express  in  their  scornful 
question  the  idea  that  none  but  a  man  from  the  despised 
province  would  be  among  the  followers  of  Jesus.  In  their 
haughty  contempt  toward  this  province,  (the  Talmud  tr.  Erubin. 
f.  liii.  1,  says :  "  Because  of  their  wretched  pronunciation,  the 
law  has  not  been  intrusted  to  the  Galileans,")  and  in  their 
blind  anger  they  overlook  the  fact  also,  that  at  least  two 
prophets,  Jonah  and  Elijah,  were  of  Galilee,  and  probably  also 
ISTahum  and  Hosea.  Luther:  "Nicodemus  had  touched  their 
consciences  and  confused  them,  so  that  they  did  not  know 
what  they  were  saying."  According  to  Bretschn eider,  in  his 
Probabilia,  the  mistake  was  not  made  by  the  scribes,  but  by 
the  Evangelist,  who,  as  Bauer  thinks,  in  his  extreme  fondness 
for  contrasts,  forgot  the  historical  data.  But  who  is  more  likely 
to  have  been  guilty  of  such  forgetful  ness,  the  Evangelist,  who, 
according  to  Bauer,  composed  the  Gospel  from  his  own  reflec- 
tions, or  a  passionate  hierarchy  in  the  heat  of  conflict  ?^ 

1  Ebrard,  1.  c.  i.  p.  493,  relieves  the  difSculty  by  understanding  it  of  the  province 
of  Galilee  in  antithesis  to  Judea,  in  which  case  the  language  would  refer  only  to 
prophets  after  the  exile. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 


The  "Woman  taken  in  Adultery.  —  Chap.  vii.  53-viii.  11. 

The  genuineness  of  this  section  is  more  than  doubtful,  inas- 
much as  there  is  a  concurrence  of  strong  reasons  for  suspecting 
it,  derived  from  various  sources.  As  regards  the  Codices,  we 
indeed  find  the  narrative  in  Cod.  D  G  H  K  M  U,  and  in  nearly 
two  hundred  of  the  Minuscula,  but  it  is  wanting  in  A  B  C,  on 
which  fact,  however,  it  is  to  be  observed,  that  the  Cod.  A  is 
defective  from  John  vi.  50  to  viii.  12,  (though  the  relative  size 
of  the  space  proves  that  this  history  was  wanting  from  the  begin- 
ning,) and  Cod.  C  is  defective  from  chap.  vii.  3  to  viii.  34.  As 
regards  the  testimony  of  Cod.  D,  its  authority  is  weakened  by 
the  fact,  that  in  some  other  places  it  has  apocryphal  additions, 
Matt.  XX.  28,  Luke  vi.  5.  Several  Codices  mark  the  passage  with 
the  obelus  or  asterisk  as  the  sign  that  it  is  to  be  rejected  or  is 
suspicious,  others  pat  it  at  the  end  of  the  Gospel,  others  after  vii. 
36.  and  even  after  Luke  21.  Euthymius  on  chap.  viii.  remarks : 
YjiT]  5s  pvwaxztv  ore  xa  ivveu&su  vii.  53  d'j^pi  too  viii.  12  Tiapa 
To1<^  dxpc^iacv  dpTcyfjd<foc^  t^  ohy^  eup-fjzac  tj  co^sXcarar  deb  (paivovrat 
■KapiyypaTzxa  xac  Ttpoa&rfAfj,  (it  is  needful  to  know,  that  the  words 
between  vii.  53  and  viii.  12  are  either  not  found  at  all  in  the 
accurate  manuscripts,  or  are  marked  with  an  obelus ;  hence, 
they  seem  to  be  interpolated  and  an  appendage,)  to  meet 
which,  indeed,  the  assurance  is  given  us  on  the  other  side  by 
Jerome,  c.  Pelag.  ii.  17,  that  this  passage  is  found  in  multis  et 
grsecis  et  latinis  codd,  and  some  scholia  assert  that  they  are 
embraced  in  dpyatoii^  b.vTtyp6.(f)0ir.  On  this  point,  however,  the 
additional  circumstance  presents  itself,  that,  as  is  usual  in  the 
case  of  interpolations,  there  is  in  this  passage  specially  an 
extraordinary  number  of  variations;  in  fact,  three  divergent 
*■  (213) 


214  Chap.  YH.  53— VHI.  11. 

texts  in  all  are  found.  The  testimony  of  the  Church  fathers, 
moreover,  is  unfavorable  to  the  genuineness  of  the  section, 
since  it  is  at  least  not  mentioned  by  Origen,  Appolinaris, 
Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  Cyrill,  Chrysostom,  Basil,  Tertullian, 
Cyprian  and  others ;  and  is  likewise  wanting  in  the  most 
ancient  manuscripts  and  editions  of  the  Syriac  translation,  in 
most  of  the  Codices  of  the  Coptic,  &c.  The  first  citations 
from  the  Greek  text  occur  in  the  Apostolic  Constitutions 
at  the  end  of  the  third  century,  and  in  Ambrose,  Augustine 
and  Jerome  ;  the  oldest  testimony  for  it,  to  wit :  in  the  second 
century,  is  given  by  the  Itala,  yet  in  this  translation  too, 
the  Cod.  Verc.  and  Brix.  omit  the  division.  Can  the  omis- 
sion, perhaps,  be  explained  on  doctrinal  grounds?  Ambrose, 
Apol.  Dav.  thinks,  siquis  ea  auribus  otiosis  accipiat,  erroris 
incentivum  incurrit,  (if  any  one  receives  it  with  idle  ears, 
he  encounters  an  incentment  to  error,)  and  Augustine,  de 
adulterinis  conjugiis,  ii.  7,  expresses  the  conjecture,  that  it  may 
have  been  omitted,  because  it  might  give  occasion  to  lightness 
of  sentiment  on  the  subject  of  adultery;  the  polemical  writer, 
Nikon,  moreover,  in  the  thirteenth  century,  maintains  that 
the  Armenian  Church  arbitrarily  erased  the  narrative,  because 
it  might  be  pernicious.  But  what  Augustine  says  is  merely 
conjecture^  (credo ;)  this  solicitude,  too,  is  found  for  the  first  time 
in  the  fourth  century  in  Augustine,  and  then  already  the 
narrative  had  been  omitted  in  many  Codices,  but  subsequently, 
after  this  solicitude  had  been  expressed,  it  was  never  on  that 
account  omitted. — To  these  external  grounds  of  suspicion  are 
yet  to  be  added  the  internal.  According  to  (Le  Clerc,)  Olshau- 
sen  and  Strauss,  it  embraces  contradictions  which  are  incapable 
of  explanation ;  this  w€  cannot  concede.  On  the  other  hand 
it  is  manifest,  that  in  its  style  it  is  remote  from  that  of  John, 
and  that  it  has  no  connection  with  what  precedes  it.  When,  for 
example,  in  v.  53,  viii.  1,  it  says  that  Jesus  went  to  the  Mount 
of  Olives,  and  that  on  the  following  day  he  again  taught  the 
people  in  the  temple,  we  can  hardly  suppose  otherwise  than 
that  exaaro^  refers  to  the  oi'/'Oz,  and  that  k7iopvj&-/]  speaks  of 
these  people  going  to  their  houses.  But  immediately  previous, 
the  o;f^iOc,  the  people,  are  not  the  subject  of  discourse.  Nothing, 
consequently,  would  remain  but  to  suppose  that  it  speaks  of 


The  "Woman  taken  in  Adultery.  215 

the  going  out  of  the  members  of  the  Sanhedrim,  and  as  the 
mention  of  this  without  some  further  motive  would  seem  to 
be  rather  superfluous,  the  sense  would  have  to  be :  "  With  the 
matter  undecided,  without  coming  to  any  conclusion,  they 
went  home."  As  regards  the  language,  the  first  thing  which 
strikes  us  is  the  nd-  6  ?m6c:^  an  expression  occurring  in  the 
Synoptists,  but  for  which  Johu  habitually  substitutes  6  6yXo<: ; 
the  phrase  xad'taa^  ioldaaxsu  a'jzoO^,  and  the  words  op&pou  and 
■jCpapifiart'j::^  occur  iu  the  Synoptists  but  not  in  John  ;  finally,  we 
have  here  several  times  the  connection  with  ds^  while  John  uses 
otiv  and  xai. — The  state  of  the  critical  data  being  such,  it 
implied  even  in  Heumann's  day  great  assurance  to  venture  the 
observation  which  he  makes :  "I  confess  that  I  doubt,  if  we 
consider  all  the  critical  marks  of  interpolated  writings,  whether 
a  solitary  one  of  them  will  be  found  in  this  history,"  (!)  but 
yet  more  amazing  is  it  that  even  in  our  day  Ebrard  can 
assure  us,  (1.  c.  i.  p.  494 :)  "  The  external  testimony  against  the 
genuineness  is  entirely  insignificant.''  After  Erasmus,  Calvin, 
Beza,  had  expressed  simply  doubt,  Grotius,  Le  Clerc,  Wetstein, 
Semler,  and  almost  all  the  recent  writers,  have  expressed  them- 
selves decidedly  against  the  genuineness  of  the  passage.  But 
the  most  recent  negative  criticism  of  Strauss,  Bauer,  (Weisse 
judges  more  impartially,)  again  pleads  for  its  genuineness, 
(Strauss  does  so  in  his  4th  ed.  after  passing  by  the  section  in 
silence  in  the  3d  ed.)  in  order  in  this  Avay  more  effectually  to 
defend  the  position,  that  the  entire  book  is  spurious.  Yet  apart 
from  these,  the  genuineness  has  been  maintained  in  the  most 
recent  period  by  Staudlin,  (in  a  Progr.  1806,)  Kuinol,  Schul- 
thess,  Scholz. — The  question  oT authenticity^  however,  is  entirely 
distinct  from  that  of  genuineness ;  it  is  a  magisterial  sentence 
without  ground,  when  Ilase,  1.  c.  p.  148,  declares  that  the  authen- 
ticity cannot  be  maintained,  when  the  genuineness  is  denied. 
!N'cander,  with  mature  historical  tact,  makes  the  remark ; 
"  Onl}',  to  make  the  largest  concession,  could  the  spirit  of  the 
!Marcionite  system  have  originated  such  a  narrative,  if  we 
suppose  that  it  is  not  from  a  true  tradition  we  derive  it ;  yet 
on  that  supposition  it  would  have  taken  a  different  form,  would 
have  taken  shape  in  a  more  decided  opposition  to  the  Mosaic 
point  of  view,  and  in  that  case  could  not  have  obtained  such 


216  Chap.  YH.  v.  53— VIIL  v.  2-5. 

general  acceptance  in  the  Catholic  Church."  In  fact,  the  nar- 
rative bears  something  of  that  spirit  in  it  which  is  so  peculiar 
to  the  Gospel — and  which,  therefore,  through  all  ages,  has  been 
understood  by  so  few,  so  that  even  the  Church  of  the  first 
century  had  already  begun  to  ignore  it — ^the  spirit  of  a  free 
pitying  love,  over  against  a  legalistic  ascetic  piety.  The 
conduct  of  our  Lord  in  this  situation  is  depicted  also  with 
a  detail  marked  by  peculiarities,  which  a  legend  certainly 
would  not  have  invented.  We  believe,  therefore,  that  it 
belongs  to  the  circle  of  the  synoptical  tradition  of  the  Gos- 
peP — the  traces  of  the  citation  of  it  extend,  as  we  have  said, 
back  to  the  period  when  the  Itala  was  translated.  But  if 
the  narrative  belongs  to  the  circle  of  the  synoptical  tradition, 
how  did  it  get  into  this  place  in  John  ?  K  we  may  be  allowed 
to  suppose  that  our  Saviour's  spending  the  night  outside  the 
city,  during  the  last  Passover,  (Luke  xxi.  37,  xxii.  39,)  was 
occasioned  by  the  danger  impending  over  him,  we  must  also, 
because  of  v.  2,  place  this  incident  in  the  time  of  the  last  Pass- 
over, and  those  manuscripts  have  consequently  followed  a  true 
tact,  which  have  put  this  narrative  at  the  close  of  Luke  21. 
For  its  insertion  here,  we  know  of  no  other  reason  than  that 
now  received  by  most,  that  it  appeared  to  give  a  striking  con- 
formation to  the  words  iyo)  ou  xpcua)  oudiua,  in  v.  15. 

Chap.  vii.  53 — viii.  2.  The  remark  has  already  been  made, 
that  the  words,  v.  53,  can  of  course  be  understood  only  of  a 
departure  for  their  homes,  at  the  close  of  a  day,  when  Jesus 
had  been  teaching  in  the  temple,  (Luke  xxi.  38.) 

V.  3-5.  It  has  been  thought  that  three  internal  improba- 
bilities may  be  detected  in  these  words,  and  these  Olshausen, 
especially,  has  felt  himself  obliged  rigorously  to  urge  :  1)  If 
these  persons  came  under  the  commission  of  the  Sanhedrim, 
how  could  they  afterward,  without  anything  further,  permit 
the  woman  to  go  ?  If  they  came  on  a  prompting  of  their  own, 
how  could  they,  as  if  they  were  official  persons,  claim  the  car- 
rying out  of  the  Mosaic  law?    2)  In  the  Pentateuch,  stoning 

1  When  Eusebiu3,  Hist.  Eccles.  iii.  '69,  mentions  that  Papias  narrates  -what  is  also 
found  in  the  Gospel  AiaiJ'  'E(3paiovc,  the  history  of  a  woman  -who  was  accused,  em 
noXlaic  afiapTiaig,  (of  many  sins,)  a  number,  even  Olshausen  among  them,  have 
found  in  this  a  trace  of  the  narrative  here ;  but  the  ini  iro'k'kalg  ufiapriaig  points 
rather  to  the  narrative  in  Luke  vii.  47. 


The  "Woman  taken  in  Adultery.  217 

is  indeed  appointed  as  the  punishment  in  certain  cases  of  for- 
nicatio,  but  in  cases  of  adultery,  merely  death  in  general, 
(Deut.  xxii.  22,  Lev.  xx.  10 ;)  the  Talmud,  indeed,  expressly 
designates  strangulation  as  the  punishment  in  such  cases.  3) 
How  could  the  question  be  supposed  to  teynpt  Jesus?  Whether 
he  advised  severity  in  accordance  with  the  law,  or  advised 
mildness,  in  either  case,  it  could  do  him  no  injury,  as  he  would 
simply  be  expressing  a  private  opinion.  Besides,  they  could 
hardly  expect  from  Jesus  a  sentence  in  direct  conflict  with  the 
explicit  direction  of  the  law,  (Strauss.) — None  of  these  diflicul- 
ties  seem  to  us  so  formidable.  Our  reply  to  the  first,  is :  the 
scribes,  by  whom  the  members  of  the  Sanhedrim  are  also 
meant,  (v.  9,)  act  as  private  persons ;  their  arrogant  self-right- 
eousness displays  itself  in  some  measure  in  their  dragging 
ofienders  to  legal  punishment.  Their  design  was  to  take  the 
woman  before  the  court,  which,  as  was  observed  on  vii.  32, 
was  sitting  in  a  hall  of  the  temple;  as  they  pass  by  Jesus, 
the  thought  is  started,  of  bringing  him,  who  as  the  friend  of 
sinners  was  so  odious  to  them,  into  difliculty  by  this  case,  and 
ihey  therefore  request  a  decision  from  him.' — As  regards  the 
iecond  question,  it  is  first  of  all  to  be  observed,  that  the  confir- 
matory statement  from  the  Mischna  is  by  no  means  to  be  con- 
sidered decisive.  It  proceeds,  in  fact,  from  a  canon  of  inter- 
pretation whose  incorrectness  can  be  demonstrated,  to  wit :  that 
where  merely  the  words  r>or  mo  are  found,  the  death  is  always 
by  strangling ;  but  cf.  Exod.  xxxi.  14,  xxxv.  2,  with  Numbers 
XV.  32-34.  Even  in  Christ's  time,  moreover,  the  Mosaic  law- 
was  no  longer  carried  out  in  all  points,  as  for  example,  the  bit- 
ter water  was  no  longer  given  to  the  adulteress  as  a  test,  (Num. 
V.  11,  seq.)  and  after  the  destruction  of  the  city,  the  changes 
were  many  and  great,  (cf.  Michselis,  Mos.  Recht,  §  262.)  Still, 
even  in  the  case  before  us,  a  consonance  with  the  Mosaic  law 

1  Since  according  to  v.  9,  members  of  the  Sanhedrim  are  included,  it  might  be 
supposed  there  w^s  a  deputation  of  the  Sanhedrim,  (Meyer,)  but  this  surely  could 
not  have  been  ojjlcialli/  sent.  If  the  supposition  is  allowable,  that,  because  of  the 
freiiuency  of  adultery,  the  legal  penalty  wms  no  longer  enforced,  (Bbrnrd,)  it  would 
certainly  be  easier  to  understand  hoTV  it  would  come  to  pass,  that  a  teacher  might 
be  consulted  as  an  individual ;  yet  in  such  a  case,  his  position  of  variance  toward 
Moses  would  have  had  in  :l  nothing  offensive ;  but  that  they,  in  case  u<!  had  decided 
with  the  law,  would  have  reproached  him  wiih  •  unucard  of  severity,  *  li,  wiih  their 
reverence  for  the  law,  not  very  likely. 

20 


218  Chap.  Vin.— v.  5-8. 

can  be  proven.  First,  we  may  consider  the  supposition  by 
which  Selden,  Lightfoot,  and  Meyer,  meet  the  difficulty,  to  wit: 
that  the  woman  was  betrothed;  in  the  case  of  such  a  woman,  if 
violation  occurred  in  the  city,  where  she  could  cry  for  help, 
(the  case  was  different  when  it  occurred  in  the  field,)  she  was 
to  be  stoned  to  death,  (Deut.  xxii.  23,  24,)  and  Philo  thinks 
that  the  term  iioi'ftia  is  applicable  to  this  form  of  crime  also. 
Yet  we  are  forced  to  ask  :  Had  this  been  the  case  here,  would 
there  not,  in  order  to  characterize  the  crime,  have  been  added, 
that  it  occurred  in  the  city'?  On  the  other  hand,  Ebrard,  as  it 
seems  to  us,  has  made  the  agreement  between  this  transaction 
and  the  law  highly  probable,  (especially  if  we  connect  with  what 
he  says  the  remarks  of  Michselis.)  His  view  is  this :  "In  Deut. 
xxii.  20-25,  four  cases  of  fornicatio  are  mentioned :  for  the  first 
and  third,  v.  20  and  23,  stoning  is  designated  as  the  mode  of 
execution ;  in  the  cases  of  the  second  and  third,  v.  22  and  25, 
only  the  word  "die  "  is  used;  but  as  in  v.  25  it  says,  "the  man 
only  shall  die^"  in  opposition  to  v.  24,  where  it  is  said,  "  loth  shall 
be  stoned,"  it  clearly  follows  that  in  the  second  and  fourth  cases 
also,  no  other  penalty  than  that  by  stoning  is  contemplated." — 
As  regards  the  third  question,  there  certainly  lay  something 
ensnaring  in  the  matter,  in  as  far  as  Christ  might  decide  against 
the  law,  as  in  that  case  he  would  be  marked  as  one  who  despised 
the  law.  Only  in  case  he  decided  for  the  stoning,  is  it  difficult 
to  see  wherein  the  point  of  the  testing  would  lie.  Luther, 
indeed,  following  Augustine,  says:  "If  he  answers  yes,  he 
contradicts  his  preaching;  if  he  says  no,  he  contradicts  Moses." 
Calvin  even  thinks  that  the  temptation  consisted  in  the  incite- 
ment to  legal  rigor,  and  as  the  result,  to  inconsistency  with  his 
ordinary,  mild  manner  of  acting;  as,  however,  Christ  never 
declared  as  a  rule,  the  release  of  the  sinner  from  punishment — 
especially  from  that  determined  by  the  civil  law — it  is  not  prob- 
able that  the  Pharisees  had  drawn  such  an  inference  from  his  con- 
duct and  his  teachings.  "We  prefer,  therefore,  with  Euthymius, 
Crell,  ITeander,  to  suppose  that  the  Tteipd^scu  does  not  involve 
the  idea  of  reducing  him  to  a  dilemma,  but  rested  on  their  fixed 
presumption,  that  Jesus  would  in  this  case  also,  display  that 
mildness  toward  sinners  which  was  so  hateful  to  them,  cf. 
Luke  vii.  49,  xv.  1,  2,   Matt.  xxi.  31. — In  xaredTJ^^r^f  let  the 


The  T\^OMAjsr  taken  in  Adultery.  219 

iiugm.  i>orl".  in  aor.  1,  be  noticed,  which  occurs  elsewhere  only 
in  doTJdr^v,  (Buttman,  Ausfuhrl  Gramm.  ii.  415.)  According 
to  the  law,  the  adulterer  was  also  to  be  put  to  death,  but  he 
seems  in  this  instance  to  have  made  his  escape.  They  place 
the  woman  in  the  midst  of  the  crowd  which  had  gathered 
around  Jesus,  so  that  the  eyes  of  all  were  turned  upon  her. 
^ ETiauzoifMfHo  is  added,  that  no  room  for  doubt  about  the 
truth  of  the  accusation  may  be  left. 

V.  G-8.  Some  Codices  add  7if>0(T7toioufjLsvo^,  others  /utj  TtpoaTz. 
both  evidently  glosses.  To  iypa^zv  various  expositors  have 
supplied,  and  even  some  Codices  have  actually  added :  Ivoc 
kxdazoo  rd;  dfjiapzca^  ;  had  Jesus,  however,  written  any  particu- 
lar words,  the  Evangelist  would  have  mentioned  what  they  were 
— ^besides,  this  was  hardly  possible  on  the  floor,  which  was  a 
paved  one,  and  probably  kept  clean.  If  we  may  not  urge  the 
words  that  ivere  written,  yet  the  act  of  writing  may  be  signifi- 
cant ;  the  meaning  of  it  according  to  Bengel  and  Michaelis  is : 
"Why  do  you  question  me?  What  stands  written  sufiices." 
Obscurely  enough  would  this  have  been  expressed,  and  cer- 
tainly if  this  had  been  the  meaning  the  act  would  not,  in  v.  8, 
have  been  repeated.  Rather  is  the  explanation  completely 
satisfactory  which  imputes  to  it  the  same  significance  which  it 
still  has  among  us.  The  writing  or  drawing  {jpdcpsev  signifies 
either,)  on  the  ground  was  in  the  ancient  world,  as  among  us, 
the  sign  of  profound  meditation  and  of  abstraction  from  all 
that  is  going  on  around,  also  of  irksomeness,  which,  occupied 
with  nothing  external,  is  absorbed  in  the  train  of  thought 
which  passes  within.  See  the  Scholion  on  Aristophanes, 
Acharn.  v.  31,  in  which  passage  come  one  after  the  other  the 
words,  xflv  irtscddp  w  ij.6vo^,  dTzopco,  ypdipu),  TTapaT'dXapa:,  Xop^opcoUy 
(afterward  when  I  am  alone,  I  hesitate,  I  write,  I  twitch  my 
hair,  I  calculate,)  so  that  one  word  explains  the  other.  In  the 
Talmud  also,  tr.  Gittin,  f.  vii.  1,  are  found  traces  of  a  similar  usage 
among  the  Jews.  Jesus,  consequently,  expresses  in  this  way, 
first  of  all,  that  he  is  giving  no  heed  to  the  question.  And 
wherefore  ?  Probably  on  the  same  ground  as  in  Luke  xii.  14, 
because  he  is  not  willing  to  interfere  in  decisions  on  questions 
of  civil  law ;  thus  Keander,  Liicke,  Olshauscn,  This  is  also 
Luther's  view,  who  adds  these  words :  "  Our  Lord  means  to 


220  Chap.  VHI.  — v.  9-11. 

say,  why  do  you  question  me  ?  and  will  not  favor  them  with  a 
word,  turns  himself  in  another  direction,  and  will  not  attend  to 
them  nor  answer  them."  But  can  it  then  be  said  that  the 
mere  expression  of  a  judicial  sentence  is  here  mvolved?  Such 
a  sentence,  in  fact,  the  Sanhedrim  alone  could  give.  The  law 
(a  fact  which  must  not  be  overlooked,)  was  a  reZ^^^o-political 
one,  and  what  it  affirms  they  themselves  adduce,  they  conse- 
quently wish  merely  to  know  what  religious  attitude  toward 
the  law  Jesus  would  assume.  We  cannot,  therefore,  well  sup- 
pose any  design  in  the  writing  other  than  in  its  repetition,  v. 
8.  We,  consequently,  coincide  with  Bengel:  Silenti  actione 
cogitation es  adversariorum  vagas,  festinantes  et  securas  fixit  et 
conscientiam  eorum  excitavit,  (by  a  silent  action  he  fixed  the 
wandering,  hasty,  self-reliant  thoughts  of  his  enemies,  and 
aroused  their  conscience.)  If  we  dared  not  assume,  a  priori, 
that  they  became  accusers  with  a  self-righteous  and  malignant 
satisfaction,  yet  v.  7  would  prove  that  they  did.  On  such 
accusers  that  deportment  of  the  Saviour  must  have  had  the 
effect  we  have  intimated.  What  passed  in  the  mind  of  Jesus 
while  he  was  silent,  is  shown  by  v.  7.  The  word  of  Christ  is 
not  to  be  regarded  as  demanding  an  abrogation  of  judicial 
punishment,  but  as  a  more  concrete  expression  for  xazaxplusiv. 
Thus  this  word  of  his  strengthens  the  influence  upon  the 
thoughts  of  the  people,  which  his  silence  had  already  been 
calculated  to  effect,  and  his  relapse  into  silence  gives  free  play 
to  the  chastening  of  conscience.  There  is  evidence  that  at  this 
period  many  of  the  Rabbins,  high  in  position,  were  living  in 
adultery,  (Wagenseil  on  the  Sota,  p.  525,  seq.,  Justin  Mart, 
dial.  c.  Tryph.  p.  363,  ed.  Col.)  yet  it  is  hardly  necessary  to 
demonstrate  this  to  justify  the  result  of  which  v.  9  tells  us. 

V.  9.  Musculus:  Fuit  procul  dubio  tantopere  hoc  Christi 
responso  illorum  verberata  conscientia,  ut  primum  prorsus 
obmutuerint,  nee  habuerint,  quod  in  speeiem  regererent. 
Deinde,  ne  ulterius  quid,  quod  minus  velleut,  ubi  se  denuo 
erexissit,  audirent,  confestim  se  ex  medio  subducunt,  (beyond 
doubt,  their  conscience  was  severely  smitten  by  this  answer  of 
Christ's,  so  that  at  first  they  were  entirely  silent,  nor  had  they 
anything  specific  to  reply.  Afterward,  when  he  lifted  up  him- 
self a  second  time,  they  feared  they  might  hear  something 


The  "Woman  taken  in  Adultery.  221 

further,  which  might  be  still  less  pleasant,  and  hurriedly  with- 
di-ew,)  cf.  the  admirable  remarks  of  Calvin. — EI;;  xad^  sFc,  a  sole- 
cism for  xai^'  eva  n-dvrec,  Mark  xiv.  19,  Rom.  xii.  5,  3  Maccab.  v. 
34.  "Eid::  zcijv  ka-^dvcov  does  not  seem  to  belong  to  the  original 
text.  Some  interpret  ::pta^'jrepoc  and  iay^azot  as  having  refer- 
ence to  age:  "Old  and  young,"  (Grotius,  Seller,)  but  if  we 
read  ewe  iff^drcov,  the  lafaTO(;  compels  us  to  refer  the  izpza^.  to 
the  rank ;  (Aristophanes :  6  layazoi;  c?^/-«oc,  the  lowest  of  the 
people,)  as  in  Latin,  primores  and  homines  postremi,  (1  Cor. 
iv.  9.)  A  withdrawal  in  the  exact  order  of  rank  is  of  course 
not  intended,  but  merely  that  the  one  class  withdrew,  as  well 
as  the  other ;  yet  the  remark  may  be  made,  that  when  the' 
principal  persons  departed,  their  inferiors  would  have  the  less 
courage  to  remain. 

V.  10,  11.  Olshausen  discovers  in  the  course  here  pursued 
by  Jesus,  a  threefold  difficulty.  First,  that  Jesus,  by  making 
the  exercise  of  the  penal  authority  dependent  on  the  moral 
character  of  the  judge,  undermines  the  foundation  of  civil 
law.  Secondly,  that  in  an  unseemly  manner  he  withdrew  the 
criminal  from  her  judge.  Thirdly,  that  an  exhortation  to  re- 
pentance, so  necessary  under  the  circumstances,  is  wanting. 
Yet  he  himself  observes  in  part,  what  serves  to  resolve  these 
scruples.  The  main  point  to  be  kept  in  view  is  this :  Christ 
llxes  his  eye  not  so  much  on  the  act  of  the  adulteress,  as  on 
the  intention  of  her  accusers ;  regarded  in  this  aspect,  which  is 
so  entirely  in  keeping  with  the  character  of  Him  who  had 
come  into  the  world  as  its  Redeemer,  (iii.  17,)  the  conduct  of 
Christ  is  perfectly  intelligible.  The  sad  mingling  of  what 
belongs  to  religion  with  what  is  demanded  by  civil  order  in  his 
own  day,  led  Luther  especially  to  take  that  view,  from  which 
also  this  conduct  of  our  Lord,  as  regards  its  relation  to  the  laiv, 
is  to  be  explained.  In  the  Mosaic  institutes,  the  State  and  the 
Church,  the  legal  and  the  religious  point  of  view,  coincide  ;  in 
the  Christian  system,  they  are  separate.  The  conception  of  the 
state  rests  upon  that  of  the  law,  and  retribution,  that  is,  punish- 
ment is  needed,  that  the  law  may  be  canned  out ;  Christ  on  the 
contrary,  and  the  Church  with  him,  works  upon  the  mind,  and 
this  is  done  through  nurturing  love ;  the  discipline  of  the  Church 
consequently,  is  not  a  xolam^,  but  simply  a  rcacdeca,  which  ceases 

20* 


222  Chap.  Vin.  — v.  12-16. 

where  there  is  penitence,  (2  Cor.  ii.  6,  7.)  In  consonance  with 
this,  Luther  says:  "He  does  not  take  from  their  right,  he  lets 
Moses  stand  untouched,  he  says  to  them  neither  nay  nor  yea,  yet 
in  a  masterly  manner  he  says  both.  "Why  do  ye  not  what  Moses 
has  commanded  ?  But  if  ye  wish  to  judge  her  in  accordance 
with  my  kingdom,  commit  her  case  to  me.  For  my  judgment 
is :  This  adulteress  is  not  alone ;  there  is  not  one  of  you  that  is 
not  as  bad  and  wicked  as  she  is."  That  the  exhortation  to 
penitence  is  wanting,  cannot  be  maintained  —  it  lies  in  the 
fifjxsu  dpapvaue,  Augustine :  ergo  et  dominus  damnavit,  sed , 
peccatum,  non  hominem,  (therefore,  our  Lord  did  pass  con- 
demnation, but  on  the  sin,  not  on  the  person.)  The  exhorta- 
tion is  a  brief  one,  but  how  mightily  had  the  circumstances 
spoken  \  1\\  her  fears,  the  woman  had  already  passed  under 
the  sentence  of  death,  she  had  endured  the  public  disgrace ; 
the  cjuestion :  "  "Wliere  are  thine  accusers,"  had  made  her  feel 
how  much  she  owed  to  Jesus,  and  that  Jesus  who  but  a  moment 
ago  with  his  searching  words  had  thrilled  the  hearts  of  her 
accusers,  turns  now  upon  her  the  look  of  pitying  love  !  Was 
it  in  the  power  of  words  to  strengthen  the  impression — would 
they  not  have  weakened  it  ? 

A  SECOND  Testimony  of  Christ  to  himself.  —  v.  12-20. 

V.  12.  Was  this  discourse,  also,  uttered  during  the  last  day 
of  the  feast?  K  v.  12  is  connected  with  vii.  52,  we  must  sup- 
pose it  to  have  been  uttered  after  those  transactions,  and  in  that 
case  it  can  hardly  belong  to  the  same  day.  Although  the  first 
mention  of  the  departure  from  the  temple  is  made  in  viii.  59, 
there  is  yet  a  change  of  place  supposed  in  v.  20.  These  dis- 
courses naturally  fall  then  into  the  time  succeeding  the  feast. 
The  testimony  of  Christ  to  himself  in  this  passage  has  an 
analogy  with  that  in  vii.  37 ;  after  the  analogy  of  that  and  the 
character  of  these  figurative  discourses  of  Christ  elsewhere,  it 
has  been  thought  necessary  to  search  for  some  distinct  occasion 
for  this  comparison  of  himself  with  light,  and  such  an  occasion 
has  been  found  in  our  Lord's  being  supposed  to  cast  his  eyes 
on  the  two  tall  golden  candlesticks,  which  during  the  feast  of 
Tabernacles  were  lighted  on  either  side  of  the  altar  of  burnt 


Second  Testimony  of  Christ  to  himself.  223 

oftering,  u'here  also  was  tlie  ya^oipuXdxcov — according  to  Maim- 
onidcs,  they  were  lighted  every  day.  If  the  discourse,  however, 
was  uttered  after  the  feast,  the  possibility  of  such  an  allusion 
falls  to  the  ground.  Lyser  and  Heumann  suggest  that  the 
rising  sun  gave  occasion  for  the  metaphorical  language.  We  do 
not  feel  ourselves  able  to  decide  anything  definitely  on  this  point. 
As  Christ  in  vii.  37  had  designated  himself  as  the  fountain  of 
the  powers  of  life,  so  here  he  designates  himself  as  the  fountain 
of  that  illumination  from  which  life  comes,  life  for  the  ivhole 
world.  By  speaking  of  following  him,  he  introduces  the  image 
of  a  guiding  star,  by  which  we  are  led  on  our  pathway,  and  he 
who  follows  him  receives  this  light  of  life  into  his  soul. 

V.  13,  14.  Such  exalted  representations  in  regard  to  his 
person  must  in  the  nature  of  the  case  excite  opposition ;  no 
man  could  receive  a  testimony  of  this  sort,  given  of  himself 
by  the  witness,  unless  he  were  in  affinity  with  him,  so  as  to  feel 
it  at  the  same  time  within  himself.  Having  no  such  affinity, 
they  at  once  charge  him  ^vith  falsehood,  but  the  Redeemer,  in 
the  power  of  a  self-consciousness  closely  conjoined  with  God, 
was  able  to  maintain  the  truth  of  what  he  had  affirmed,  (vii.  28, 
29.)  Augustine  :  Lumen  et  alia  demonstrat  et  se  ipsum.  Tes- 
timonium sibi  perhibet  lux,  aperit  sanos  oculos  et  sibi  ipsa  testis 
est,  (Light,  which  brings  other  things  to  view,  brings  itself  to 
view.  Light  furnishes  its  own  testimony,  it  opens  healthful 
eyes,  and  itself  is  a  witness  to  itself.)  The  inference  of  his 
adversaries  was  indeed  conceded  by  Christ  in  tbe  discourse, 
chap.  V.  31,  but  only  by  accommodation,  and  the  same  accom- 
modation follows  here  in  v.  18. 

Y.  15, 16.  He  animadverts  on  the  tone  of  mind  from  wbich 
that  judgment  proceeded.  Idp^  may  be  the  outward  appear- 
ing of  Christ,  (cf.  xaz  o^/v,  vii.  24,)  or  it  may  mean  the  crdp^ 
of  those  who  judged  him,  in  antithesis  to  the  pneumatic  tone 
of  mind  from  which  an  acknowledgment  of  his  witness  to  him- 
self would  have  to  proceed.  The  iyco — oudiua,  Bauer  regards  as 
absolutely  out  of  place,  and  ascribes  it  entirely  to  the  disposition 
of  the  Evangelist  to  exaggerate.  Cyrill,  Flatt,  Kuinol,  supply,  to 
complete  the  sense,  xa-a  zr^v  frdpxa,  (according  to  the  flesh,)  but 
in  this  way  the  resumption  in  the  proposition  xai — i^o),  which 
is  clearly  absolute,  is  falsified,  (Be  Wette ;)  it  is  better,  there- 


224  Chap.  Vm.— v.  17-24. 

fore,  to  take  xpiuco  in  the  connection  in  the  same  evil  sense  in 
which  we  find  it  used  in  the  connection  in  Matt.  vii.  1  also. 
Christ  has  no  pleasure  in  judging,  and  where  pleasure  is  felt  in 
it,  it  is  the  infallible  sign  of  a  heart  of  impurity ;  that  he 
judges,  however,  is  shown  by  v.  16,  but  he  does  it  only  in 
fellowship  with  the  Father ;  it  springs,  therefore,  from  motives 
which  are  objective,  and  consequently,  pure. 

V.  17,  18.  The  thought  expressed  in  v.  16  leads  to  an 
accommodation  similar  to  that  which  we  have  in  ch.  v.  31,  32. 
"We  see  from  expressions  like  these,  and  like  those  in  verse  29 
and  in  xvi.  32,  that  the  identity  of  the  self-consciousness  of 
Christ  with  that  of  God  has  not  abrogated  the  distinction 
between  them. — Cf  Deut.  xix.  15. 

V.  19,  20.  That  the  Jews  knew  very  well  whom  he  meant 
by  the  Father,  we  see  clearly  from  chap.  v.  18,  x.  33,  but  they 
deride  after  the  manner  of  men  who  cling  to  what  seems  to  be 
the  evidence  of  the  senses.  In  correspondence  with  the  state- 
ment elsewhere  made,  that  the  knowledge  of  the  Father  is  indis- 
pensable to  the  acknowledgment  of  Christ,  the  converse  as 
regards  the  relation  may  be  affirmed.  It  cannot  be  determined 
with  entire  certainty  what  is  here  meant  by  the  Ya^o(pu?Mxiov, 
see  Liicke  on  this  passage,  and  De  Wette  on  Luke  xxi.  1. 
According  to  the  Talmud,  there  were  in  the  Sanctuary  thirteen 
boxes  for  the  reception  of  ofiferings,  which  are,  perhaps,  here 
named  collectively  ya^O(pu?Ax:ou ;  from  Mark  xii.  41,  seq.  we 
must  suppose  they  were  placed  in  the  fore-court  of  the  women. 
'£v  designates  place,  (Luke  xiii.  4.)  The  designation  by  John 
of  the  locality  may  be  incidental,  but  may  be  designed  to  mark 
the  fact  that  Jesus  taught  in  a  place  where  multitudes  assembled, 
in  order  that  the  extraordinary  fact  that  ouoerc  iTriaaeu  ahxbv  (no 
man  laid  hands  on  him,)  may  be  made  more  prominent,  in 
which  case  xax  must  be  taken  as  adversative,  (and  yet.) 

Jesus  warns  them— Discourses  of  his  Dignity. — v.  21-29. 

V.  21,  22.  Whether  this  discourse  immediately  followed,  or 
is  given  without  respect  to  the  order  of  time,  cannot  be  deter- 
mined. On  one  of  the  middle  days  of  the  feast,  Christ  had 
uttered  something  of  the  same  Idnd,  vii.  33,  34;  here  ouyi^ 


Jesus  warns  them — Discourses  of  his  Dignity.      225 

£uprj(T£ze  is  omitted,  and  xal  iv  ttj  d/iapTca  u/kou  d.7:o&avtia&t  is 
added.  \i[iafiTia  cannot,  as  Calvin  supposes,  have  a  dilOferent 
sense  from  the  plural  in  v.  24.  The  thought  is  consequently 
this:  "Ye  shall  die  in  an  unredeemed  condition."  It  would 
seem  on  this  view,  in  conflict  with  the  exposition  we  have 
adopted  on  vii.  34,  as  if  (^rjzslv  must  designate  the  longing  after 
the  Messiah,  and  07:00 — iX&eXv  the  result  of  dying  without  a 
Redeemer.  But  such  a  conception  of  the  meaning  of  l^r^Tzty 
has  nothing  whatever  in  its  favor,  and  in  this  very  connection 
V.  24  is  also  against  it,  for  as  unbelief  is  the  reason  why  they 
die  in  their  sins,  the  ^r^rtiv  cannot  be  a  longing  after  Christ ;  we 
are  forced,  therefore,  with  Calvin,  to  limit  it  to  "  a  seeking  for 
aid  from  necessity,  without  faith,  and  consequently  no  seeking  at 
all."  If,  however,  we  make  this  distinction,  must  not  the  lan- 
guage refer  to  calamities  at  least?  But  if  we  admit  this,  we 
are  the  more  necessitated  to  interpret  the  expression  in  conso- 
nance Avith  vii.  33,  xiii.  33.  In  this  way  we  are  led  to  the 
sense  :  "  Use  the  present  moment,  for  soon  I  shall  be  no  more 
with  you ;  ye  shall  seek  me  in  vain,  and  shall  pass  away  in  your 
sins,  but  I  shall  be  forever  delivered  from  your  snares."  There 
need  be  no  difficulty  in  adopting  this  view,  because  it  would 
require  us  to  insert  the  words  "in  vain,"  since  they  must  be 
added,  even  if  we  assume  that  ^tjtziv  means  the  seeking  of  help. 
In  John,  least  of  all,  can  we  be  surprised  at  inexactness  of 
phraseology,  (cf.  the  remarks  on  vii.  3,  xvi.  10,  &c.) 

V.  23.  Calvin :  Pergunt  non  modo  in  securo  contemptu, 
sed  etiam  in  protervia,  (they  persist  not  only  in  their  con- 
temptuous security,  but  even  in. wantonness,)  as  in  vii.  35.  As 
the  Jewish  abhorrence  of  suicide  was  very  great,  and  as  the 
opinion  prevailed  among  them  that  the  self-murderer  was  con- 
demned to  the  lowest  hell,  (Josephus,  De  bello  Judaic,  iii.  8,  5,) 
the  words  imply  the  most  unmitigated  scorn,  and  intimate  be- 
sides, why  they  would  not  wish  to  follow  him — to  wit :  into  hell. 

V.  23,  24.  Verse  23  ma}^  be  regarded  either  as  a  solemn  re- 
joinder to  their  scoff,  or  merely  as  a  continuation  of  v.  21.  The 
former  would  undoubtedly  be  the  preferable  view,  if  ra  xdrco 
meant  the  world  below,  ^XJ^,  but  the  words  Ix  zoo  x6a(io'j  zoozoo 
show  that  it  refers  to  the  earth,  (Acts  ii.  19 ;)  the  transition  to 
V.  24,  would  consequently,  if  that  supposition  were  correct,  be 


226  Chap.  VHI.— v.  25. 

difficult  to  explain.  The  connection,  therefore,  as  Crell  already 
gives  it,  is  this:  "Ye  are  earthly  minded,  I  am  heavenly;  if 
therefore  ye  be  not  justified  by  faith  in  me,  ye  must  perish  in 
your  sins."     On  iyd)  ecfii,  compare  remarks  at  iv.  26. 

V.  25.  Luther :  "  A  sarcastic  reply,  as  if  they  said :  Pretty 
well,  that  is  very  likely.  And  who  are  you  then,  good  Master 
Jesus?"  This  sentence,  especially  because  of  the  tt^v  dp^ijv  at 
the  beginning  of  it,  has  been  a  crux  interpretum,  and  has  given 
rise  to  the  most  diversified  interpretations  and  fancies.  As  zrjv 
dpx^u  even  in  a  philological  respect  has  been  explained  in  ways 
very  different  and  sometimes  in  conflict  with  the  usages  of  the 
language,  we  have  first  of  all  to  specify  what  it  may  mean  and 
\vhat  it  cannot  mean,  cf.  De  Wette  and  Liicke.  On  this  point 
it  is  considered  as  understood  that  o,  zi  is  to  be  taken  as  relative, 
that  xal  is  not  to  be  removed  from  the  text,  and  that  tyju  dp^jv 
is  not  substantive,  but  adverbial,  like  dxir/jv.  This  adverb  cannot 
mean  "  truly,"  (Kuinol,  Liicke,  2d  ed.;)  it  can  hardly  mean,  "to 
begin  with,  first  of  all,"  (Erasmus,  Luther,  Bucer,  Grotius, 
Paulus,  Olshausen;)  "first  of  all,  I  am  he  whom  I  also  tell  you 
I  am,  that  is,  he  who  admonishes  you,"  (Paulus ;)  "  first  of  all — 
and  I  speak  it  openly — I  have  much  to  censure,  and  to  rebuke 
in  you,  and  am,  therefore,  he  who  earnestly  admonishes  you," 
(Olshausen ;)  "  in  the  first  place,  I  am  what  I  have  just  declared 
myself  to  be — the  light  of  the  world,"  (Grotius;)  "first,  I  am 
your  preacher,"  (Luther.)  All  these  ways  of  taking  the  expres- 
sion suppose  that  our  Saviour's  design  was  primarily  to  lead 
the  Jews  to  a  different  view  of  himself,  so  that  when  they 
stood  on  this  point  of  view,  he  might  reveal  to  them  one  yet 
higher.  But  on  the  one  hand,  the  trailing  character  of  these 
explanations,  on  the  other,  their  inaptness,  is  manifest;  it  is 
besides  questionable  whether  tyiv  dp-f^riv  is  ever  used  in  the  sense 
of  "first  of  all."  According  to  ordinary  usage  it  signifies,  1) 
in  the  beginning,  equivalent  to  formerly,  aforetimes ;  2)  from 
a  former  period,  from  the  beginning,  that  is,  altogether,  and  this 
is  almost  always  its  sense  in  negations ;  3)  from  the  beginning, 
Herodotus,  i.  9.  (Schweighauser,  Lex.  Herod,  i.  p.  105.  Her-, 
mann  on  Sophocles,  Antig.  v.  92.')    The  exposition  most  widely 

1  Although  the  philologists  we  have  named  are  sufficient  authority  for  so  nnder- 
Btanding  the  word  in  that  passage,  yet  the  meaning  of  "altogether"  might  perhaps 
answer.     Liicke  has  overlooked  that  meaning. 


Jesus  warns  tiikm — Discourses  of  his  Dk^xity.      227 

embraced  (Noiinus,  Mclanctlion,  Beza,  Camerarius,  Calvin,  Le 
Clerc,  Ileumann,')  is  that  which  rests  on  this  third  signification 
of  the  word,  and  ^v•hich  takes  }.a?M  in  the  sense  of  the  pre- 
terite: "What  I  told  you  already  in  the  beginning,  {or  from  the 
beginning^)  that  am  I;"  Eisner  adduces  as  a  parallel  the  passage 
in  Plautus,  Capteivi  iii.  4,  91 :  Eho,  die  mihi:  quis  igitur  ille  est? 
— queni  dudum  dixi  a  principio  tibi,  (come,  then,  tell  me  who 
he  is  ? — He  whom  I've  told  you  all  along  from  the  beginning. 
Riley's  Translat.  Bohn,  1852.)  The  present  tense  ?m?xo,  as  in  xiv, 
24,  viii.  58,  includes  the  preterit.  To  the  view  just  presented  De 
Wettc  objects,  on  the  following  grounds :  1)  Because  the  colloca- 
tion of  the  words  is  arbitrarily  changed.  But  does  not  the  empha- 
sis lie  on  rijv  drjyr^u'^.  2)  Aa?M  is  taken  as  if  it  were  iXdlr^aa.  But 
has  not  De  "Wette  himself,  in  vi.  63,  acknowledged  that  the  pres- 
ent tense  may  include  time  past?  The  /«/,  moreover,  whether  it 
be  translated  "  also  "  or  "  even,"  is  entitled  to  its  due  weight,  and 
should  this  ha  met  with  the  objection,  that  lalco  cannot  stand 
for  Uyco^  the  reply  may  be  made,  that  here,  either  would  be  in 
place,  cf  Xiyco  in  v.  26,  with  Xa/M^  xvii.  13,  and  in  addition,  vi. 
63,  xii.  48,  xvi.  25.  We  consequently  still  maintain  that  our 
interpretation  is  entirely  admissible.  De  Wette,  on  the  other 
hand,  insists  that  the  proposition  is  to  be  understood  in  this 
way :  "  To  the  question  of  the  Jews,  Jesus  does  not  wish  to 
make  the  reply :  I  am  the  Messiah,  because  they  adhered  so 
strongh'  to  a  dead,  positive  idea,  and  as  they  would  not  find 
this  verified  in  him,  they  would  only  have  been  the  more 
hardened  against  him :  he  refers  them,  therefore,  to  his  dis- 
courses ;  first  of  all  in  these  discourses  was  he  to  be  recognized." 
This  way  of  taking  it  is  ingenious,  but  I  object  at  the  very  out- 
start  to  translating  "first  of  all,"  "preeminently;"  the  word 
cannot  be  equivalent  to  inprimis,  although  it  has  been  proposed 
by  some  to  take  it  in  this  sense  even  in  Herodot.  i.  0.  Liicke, 
3d  ed.,  following  Euthymius,  and  especially  Locella,  (Xen. 
Ephes.  Annot.  p.  164,  seq.)  renews  the  conception  of  it  as 
interrogative:  "Why  am  I  yet  speaking  to  you  at  all?"  so  as 
to  make  it  a  dismissal  of  the  matter  like  that  in  x.  25,  ecTiov 

1  Some  of  these  expositors,  without  any  thing  further  to  justify  it,  translate  in 
the  preterit,  others  in  the  present;  Beza,  however,  justifies  the  present,  and  Heu- 
mann  also  makes  a  remark  upon  it. 


228  Chap.  Vm.  — v.  26-32. 

bfxiv  xal  ou  ■Kiaxtbs.xz.  On  linguistic  grounds,  certainly  no  objec- 
tion can  be  urged  against  this  view.  "0,  xt  frequently  occurs  as 
absolute,  in  the  sense  of  "wherefore,"  and  that  too  by  an 
elliptic  usage,  so  that  a  scire  velim  must  be  supplied,  (Stallbaum 
zu  Euthyd.  271,  A.)  Kai  m  the  gradation  ad  infra,  "yet, 
still,"  is  also  familiar,  (Rom.  viii.  24.)  But  the  want  of  con- 
gruity  between  this  answer  and  that  question,  creates  a  serious 
difficulty,  which  would,  however,  be  somewhat  relieved  if  "at 
all"  were  left  out;  on  this  view,  moreover,  the  connection  of 
V.  26  is  not  a  good  one. 

Y.  26.  With  the  complaint  of  their  refusing  to  listen  to  an 
explanation  oft  repeated,  are  naturally  connected  the  censure 
that  they  gave  so  much  occasion  for  reproof,  and  the  comfort 
which  under  the  circumstances  of  the  case  is  found  in  the 
thought,  that  the  eternal  fountain  of  truth,  the  Father  himself, 
had  imposed  on  him  an  internal  necessity  for  uttering  all  these 
reproofs,  (v.  15,  16.)  "Ey^io  with  the  infinitive,  designates  the 
objective  ability,  Acts  iv.  14,  (I  could,)  it  here  refers  to  the 
past  time  and  the  present.  The  two  propositions,  d.XX — xoafiov, 
are  to  be  regarded  as  premises  from  which  the  hearer  is  left  to 
draw  his  own  conclusions.  Ei^  xbv  xbajxov  for  xG)  xoafxii)^  (Mark 
xiii.  10,  Luke  xxiv.  47,)  so  that  ilc.  in  an  expression  of  more 
vivacity,  indicates  the  direction  and  the  extension  of  what  he 
speaks,  (Liicke.) 

V.  27-29.  On  v.  27,  De  "Wette  makes  the  remark,  that  their 
not  understanding  him  seems  highly  improbable — certainly, 
especially  as  in  v.  19,  they  understood  the  word ;  therefore,  were 
it  merely  said  ohx  eyvcoaav  xbv  Ttaxepa,  ov  iXeyev  abxdl(;,  (they  knew 
not  the  Father,  of  whom  he  was  speaking  to  them,)  we  would 
fain  say  with  Liicke,  that  the  words  refer  to  the  recognition 
of  the  matter^  and  consequently  to  unbelief,  but  the  words  are, 
^'■tJiat  he  spake  to  them  of  the  Father;"  on  the  construction, 
cf.  what  is  said  on  i.  46. — This  want  of  openness  of  heart  on 
their  part,  leads  our  Lord  to  reflect  on  the  effect  which  his 
death  would  have,  (xii.  24,  32,  xvi.  7.)  As  we  have  uipdxryjxe^ 
and  not  the  passive  as  in  xii.  32,  iii.  14,  it  is  perfectly  clear  that 
the  reference  is  to  the  crucifixion,  which  however,  as  the  tran- 
sition to  the  glorification,  (xiii.  31,)  embraces  the  latter  in  it, 
(Calvin,    Piscator,   De  "Wette  ;)   then   under  the   co-working 


Christ  rebukes  his  Opponents.  225> 

of  the  Holy  Spirit,  -w^onld  it  become  manifest  to  many  that 
Christ  had  acted  and  spoken  in  unity  with  God,  In  tlio 
opposition  of  the  more  general  ttocco,  and  of  the  more  special 
Xado),  we  miss  the  syntactical  congruency,  (see  on  eh.  v.  38,  p. 
161.)  He  begins  with  the  words  xal  6  7zi:[jnpa^  xzL  to  compose 
his  soul,  as  to  the  misapprehension  in  regard  to  him  which 
prevailed.  Instead  of  the  aorist  d^^xs,  the  present  might  have 
been  anticipated,  (Luther  translates  it  "leaves,")  but  it  has  a 
retrospective  regard  to  the  6  -kfupac:,  so  that  the  act  of  the  send- 
ing and  of  the  obx  dtpdvac  is  to  be  regarded  as  one  thing,  (Liicke.) 
The  causal  relation  indicated  by  ore  is  not  obvious,  and  it  may 
be  asked :  Is  it  not  rather  his  not  being  left  alone  by  the  Father, 
that  is  the  ground  of  the  Ttozlv  za  dpzazd  ?  ("  I  do  always  those 
things  that  please  him.")  Maldonatus  consequently  takes  ozc 
here,  in  the  direct  sense  of  ideo,  (therefore,)  and  Olshausen  and 
Meyer  insist  on  taking  ozc,  not  as  a  designation  of  the  causa 
essendi,  but  of  the  cognoscendi,  "as  is  known  by  the  fact  that 
I  do,  &c."  Better  thus:  d<fcivac  carries  in  it  the  idea  of  aban- 
donment, but  the  divine  protection  is  over  those  alone  who 
have  a  godly  walk,  (xv.  10.)  The  moral  self-witness  in  this 
declaration  would  supply  the  place  of  one  in  v.  46,  if  from  exe- 
getical  considerations  no  such  witness  could  be  acknowledged 
in  that  passage. 

Christ  severely  rebukes  his  Opponents,  and  sets  forth  his 
EXALTED  Dignity. — v.  30-59. 

V.  30-32.  From  this  self-testimony  also,  as  in  vii.  40,  we 
see  that  susceptible  natures  were  subdued  by  the  direct  impres- 
sion made  by  words  like  these.  The  power  of  the  word 
received  internally,  is  also  recognized  by  Christ  as  a  principle 
of  internal  transformation,  but  in  order  to  this,  the  word  itself 
must  be  firmly  adhered  to.  On  v.  30-46,  cf  Kling,  Studien  u. 
Kritik.  1836,  H.  3,  with  fisusiv  iv  zut  Xoyu),  cf  fxivzcv  iu  z.  dcoayji, 
2  John  9,  iv  ^lioi,  vi.  56,  xv.  7 ;  the  opposite  of  this  is  illustra- 
ted in  the  persons  mentioned  in  vi.  66.  FivclxTxtcv,  as  in  vi.  69, 
is  primarily  the  insight  into  the  truth,  which  is  imparted  by 
the  operation  of  the  word ;  it  is  in  addition  the  scientific  in- 
sight to  which  that  experience  impels  cultivated  minds,  this 

Q  21 


230  Chap.  Vin.  — V.  33-36. 

at  least  is  not  excluded,  even  though  no  direct  regard  was  had 
to  it.  The  truth  here,  however,  is  not  so  much  the  truth  of  the 
doctrine,  as  the  doctrine  of  the  truth,  (xviii.  37,)  the  truth  of 
which  Christ  was  the  bearer  to  men  was  to  become  recognized 
by  its  operation.^  As  the  fundamental  part  of  this  doctrine, 
however,  is  that  which  pertains  to  Christ  himself,  we  have  in 
V.  36,  6  yfoc  instead  of  3y  dhjO^eca.  The  idea  of  the  Christian 
i?.£o&sf)ia,  Bengel  already  correctly  defines :  Immunitas  filiorum 
Dei  ab  omni  potestate  contraria,  (the  freedom  of  God's  children 
from  every  power  which  is  against  them.)  This  Christian  idea, 
which  is  thoroughly  peculiar,  is  found  to  a  remarkable  extent 
in  all  the  Apostles,  not  excepting  James  even,  cf.  2  Cor.  iii.  17, 
Eom.  vi.  18,  vii.  6,  viii.  21,  Gal.  v.  1, 13,  iv.  26,  31, 1  Pet.  ii.  16, 
James  i.  25,  ii.  12 ;  it  embraces  the  freeing  of  the  understanding, 
(2  Cor.  iii.  17,)  and  the  freeing  of  the  will  from  sin,  and  by 
consequence,  from  the  law  also.  Christian  truth,  experienced  in 
its  wholesome  effect,  is  acknowledged  and  loved  by  men  as  the 
only  power  authorized  of  God,  and  connection  with  it  in  love, 
is  the  might  which  overcometh  sin. 

V.  33.  Are  those  who  make  this  reply  the  believers  whom 
Christ  had  addressed?  (Maldonatus,  Bengel,  Kling,  Olshausen.) 
If  this  be  so,  how  could  Christ,  v.  37,  charge  them  with  pur- 
poses of  murder,  and  direct  against  them  what  may  be  consid- 
ered altogether  one  of  his  severest  discourses  ?  Olshausen 
urges  the  d.X-/jd^co(;,  v.  31,  the  force  of  which  is  not :  "  Ye  are 
disciples  who  are  not  yet  perfect,"  {dk/jd^cvio:;,)  but  "ye  are 
impure  disciples."  He  supposes  that  in  v.  37  no  conscious 
purpose  is  ascribed  to  them,  but  simply,  "the  sinful  element 
in  general."  But  this  answer  is  not  very  satisfactory,  nor  is 
that  of  Kling:  "They  had  by  their  answer  in  v.  33,  put  them- 
selves back  again  into  the  Jewish  xdcTfxo^,  and  were  conse- 
quently treated  by  Jesus  as  those  who  belonged  to  this  mass 
which  was  in  a  state  of  enmity  against  him."  We  have  there- 
fore, with  the  majority  of  the  interpreters,  to  decide  for  the 
view,  that  those  persons  resume  who,  from  v.  21  on,  had  been 
the  speakers.  Calvin :  ego  ita  sentio,  ut  in  promiscua  turba 
fieri  solet,  confuse  responsum  fuisse  Christo,  (I  suppose,  that  as 

1  Augustine,  who  abstractly  separates  cognoscere  and  credere,  believes  that  the 
future  yvuffcffi^e  has  reference  to  the  world  to  come. 


Christ  rebukes  his  Opponents.  231 

is  common  iu  a  mixed  crowd,  a  conftised  response  was  made  to 
Christ.)  What  he  said  of  freedom,  they  referred  to  political 
freedom,  of  which  they  had  heen  jealous  from  the  time  of  the 
Maccabees  downward,  and  ro  which  they  supposed  themselves 
to  have  a  claim,  as  Abraham's  seed,  (Gen.  xviii.  18.)  "  The 
most  ordinary  laborer,"  saj's  the  Talmud,  "who  is  of  Abra- 
ham's seed,  is  the  peer  of  kings,"  (Lightfoot.)  But  the  question 
rises,  can  we  suppose  their  passion  to  have  blinded  them  so 
far,  that  they  could  forget,  not  only  the  earlier  captivities,  but 
the  fact  that  they  were  then  under  the  dominion  of  Rome  ? 
As  this  seems  impossible,  we  might,  with  Lightfoot  and  Liicke, 
3d  ed.,  suppose  that  they  mean  personal,  civil  liberty,  inas- 
much as  the  Jew  by  birth,  might  not  be  a  slave ;  would  not  the 
language,  however,  if  this  had  been  the  design,  rather  have 
been:  ouds7^  ■fjucoy  obotvt  otoouhuxev t  (None  of  us  has  ever 
been  a  slave  to  any  man.)  Or  might  the  assertion  be  ventured, 
that  they  said  this  with  the  intention  of  claiming  that  they 
had  still  maintained  a  certain  independence  all  along?  (Kling.) 
V.  34-36.  The  truth  so  odious  to  them,  expressed  in  v.  31, 
32,  is  solemnly  confirmed  still  further.  Tr^z  b.ix(xpxiac,  is  omitted 
in  Cod.  D,  in  Clemens  Alexandrinus,  and  in  some  Latin 
Codices,  and  certainly  looks  like  an  explanatory  gloss.  If, 
then,  it  be  omitted,  the  connection  of  v.  35  is  closer ;  if  it  be 
retained  as  genuine,  v.  35  is  to  be  explained  as  giving  prominence 
to  the  generic  idea  of  odbloz.  In  considering  v.  35,  an  answer 
is  first  of  all  to  be  given  to  the  question  as  to  the  justness  of  the 
proposition,  taken  in  its  literal  sense.  If  we  regard  it  as  the 
affirmation  of  a  fact,  it  seems  to  be  incorrect,  for  a  servant  is 
not  necessarily  either  sold  or  cast  out;  we  have,  therefore,  to 
confine  ourselves  to  the  conception  of  the  family  ;  with  this 
conception  the  servant  has  no  necessary  connection,  but  the 
son  has.  Furthermore,  it  may  be  asked  whether  the  oov  in  v. 
36  involves  a  strict  sequence,  for  if  this  be  the  case,  we  are 
tempted  to  adopt  the  view  of  the  Greek  expositors,  and  regard 
the  words  nevzc  dc;  top  acioua  as  embracing  also  the  right  pos- 
sessed by  the  head  of  the  family,  the  right  of  manumission,  and 
consequently  already,  in  v.  35,  understand  6  0:6:;  as  referring 
to  Christ  himself  On  the  other  hand,  if  v.  36  be  not  closely 
connected  with  v.  35,  the  ouv  may  be  referred  to  the  douko^ 


232  Chap.  Vm.— v.  37-40. 

iarc  T^c  fiyLapziaz,  and  v.  35  is  then  an  incidental  remark  in 
regard  to  the  mournful  consequences  of  such  a  douXeca.  But 
we  think  that  in  v.  36,  6  ufoc  must  be  taken  as  a  resumption 
from  V.  35,  (Crell:  a  generali  significatione  ad  specialem 
descendit — he  descends  from  the  general  meaning  to  the 
special,)  and  would  give  the  sense  thus :  "  The  service  of  sin  is 
bondage ;  such  bondsmen  now  as  ye  are  do  not  properly  belong 
to  the  family,  but  may  be  cast  out  at  any  moment ;  only  the 
child  of  the  house,  in  whom  the  spirit  of  the  family  has  sway, 
as  is  the  case  with  me,  is  unchangeably  a  member  of  the 
family :  if  now  the  child  of  the  house  makes  you  also  freemen, 
as  he  is  a  freeman,  then  are  ye  free  indeed."  To  this  the  reply 
is  urged,  that  the  right  of  manumission  was  vested  in  the 
master  of  the  household,  and  not  in  the  son;  but  the  objection 
falls  away,  on  the  supposition  that  the  application  our  Saviour 
designed  to  make  of  the  figure  had  an  influence  on  the  phrase- 
ology, for  in  that  case  we  think  of  iho&spo^  as  the  reciprocal 
idea  of  o  uto^,  and  of  the  general  proposition  as  presupposing 
that  only  a  freeman  can  make  others  free.  Calvin :  Quod 
natura  proprium  habeat  (filius,)  nobis  adoptione  communicat, 
dum  fide  inserimur  in  ejus  coi-pus  ac  eflicimur  ejus  membra, 
(what  the  Son  has  by  nature  as  his  own,  he  imparts  by  adoption 
to  us,  when  by  faith  we  are  inserted  into  his  body  and  made 
members  of  him.)  "Outcoi;,  as  dXrj&cvihc:  does  in  other  passages, 
points  to  the  fact,  that  no  other  species  of  bondage  so  enslaves 
man  in  his  genuine  nature,  as  the  abandonment  to  the  blind 
power  of  the  impulses,  (Rom.  vii.  17,)  of  that  rational  will  of 
his,  which  was  designed  for  communion  with  God. 

V.  37,  38.  As  descendants  of  Abraham,  they  had  claimed  the 
prerogative  of  being  freemen,  but  as  vii.  19  demonstrates  that 
the  very  persons  who  boasted  that  they  were  Moses'  disciples, 
flew  in  the  face  of  the  law  of  Moses  by  their  murderous  pur- 
poses, so  here  our  Saviour  demonstrates  to  them,  that  in  spite 
of  that  prerogative  they  claicned,  they  were  the  grossest  servants 
of  sin,  they  cherished  murderous  purposes  against  their  fellow 
man,  and  this,  too,  from  obtuseness  toward  the  word  of  Crod,  (v.  40.) 
I-Kspfxa  here,  probably,  in  contradistinction  from  tixva,  v.  39, 
is  used  simply  to  design  physical  derivation.  XcDptIv  means :  1) 
to  have  space  for,  hence  cum.  accus.  "to  contain;"  2)  to  make 


Christ  rebukes  nis  Opponents.  233 

room  for  another,  that  is,  "to  give  away,  to  yield;"  3)  to  make 
room  for  one's  self,  that  is,  "to  move  onward,  make  progress, 
succeed."  It  may,  consequent!}',  be  taken  in  two  ways:  1)  like 
TTpoxozTsiu,  7rpo^(oi)£Tu,  "to  advance,"  and  iv  o/iiu,  "among  you." 
(Luther,  Eisner,  Kypke,  Liicke.)  To  my  objection,  that  this 
sense  is  Hat  and  vulgar,  Liicke  replies:  "If  it  be  the  correct 
sense,  we  are  not  concerned  as  to  its  being  flat  and  vulgar,"  a 
hermeneutical  remark,  which  could  only  be  justified  if  the 
vulgar  and  flat  were  wont  to  be  found  in  our  Saviour's  dis- 
courses. On  p.  353,  Liicke  argues  against  an  interpretation,  on 
the  ground  that  it  makes  the  proposition  sound  ^Hoo  feeble." 
2)  "To  make  an  entrance,  penetrate,"  so  that  by  iu  the  conse- 
quence of  the  abiding  is  anticipated,  as  N^onnus  expresses  it, 
ojuei  i7,  (enters  in,)  thus  Grotius,  Kuinol,  Meyer,  [Luthardt.] 
Thus  the  lust  of  murder  appears  still  more  detestable,  since  it 
originates  in  obtuseness  in  regard  to  God's  word. — Total  con- 
trast between  them  and  himself;  their  mode  of  acting  made 
them  like  the  devil,  in  whom  likewise  the  lust  of  murder 
sprung  from  hatred  to  the  truth,  (v.  44.)  The  primary  concep- 
tion of  the  Father  connects  itself  wdth  the  idea  of  dependence 
on  the  part  of  the  child,  but  there  is  also  a  reference  to  the 
similarity  between  them,  as  the  verse  immediately  following 
shows.  In  regard  to  bpav^  as  designating  the  mode  in  which 
God  was  manifest  to  Christ,  cf  what  is  said  on  i.  18.  Import- 
ant critical  authorities  have  the  reading,  tfAobaaxs.  Tzapd  too 
Tzarpoz,  but  probably  only  because  it  was  regarded  as  offensive 
to  apply  also  to  the  relation  which  our  Saviour's  opposers  sus- 
tained to  the  devil,  the  expression  bpav  r.apa.  r.  r.arpl.  Aako  is 
in  apposition  with  ttoisTu,  for  in  the  ?Mh7u  the  ttoisTu  of  Christ 
consisted.     Ow,  "as  ye  show  such  a  thirst  for  blood." 

V.  39,  40.  Without  even  yet  seeing  our  Saviour's  drift,  they 
wish  to  turn  off  any  unpleasant  allusion  he  may  be  supposed 
to  intend.  Christ  uses  the  term:  "children  of  Abraham,"  in 
the  sense  in  which  Paul  subsequently  employed  it  as  a  meta- 
phorical designation  of  those  who  are  "in  spiritual  affinity" 
with  him,  (Rom.  iv.  11,  12,  ix.  8.)  In  German  we  can  express 
the  conception  in  the  pun,  "  Waret  ihr  Abraham's  Nachkommen, 
60  wiirdet  ihr  auch  seiuen  Werkeu  nachkommen"  (were  ye 
descendants  of  Abraham,  ye  would  follow  his  works ;)  in  this 

21* 


234  Chap.  Vm.— v.  41-45. 

passage,  as  in  v.  37,  tlie  lust  of  murder  is  characterized  further 
by  a  reference  to  its  motive,  only  through  this  motive  does  it 
attain  to  the  character  of  the  diabolical. 

V.  41^3.  They  now  perceive  this  much,  that  Jesus  char- 
acterizes them  as  illegitimate  children  in  religion,  and  to  this 
they  make  the  rejoinder,  that  God  alone  is  the  Father,  the 
founder  of  Israel,  (Isa.  Ixiii.  16,  Ixiv.  8,  Deut.  xxxii.  6.)  But 
were  this  the  case,  the  kindred  would  recognize  the  kindred, 
(v.  42,  vii.  17,  18.)  ''Hxco  in  the  sense  of  the  preter.  as  in  ii. 
4 ;  consequently,  as  the  completion  of  the  action  which  lies  in 
i^7jX&ov ;  a  doubt  may  be  felt  whether  no  more  lies  in  it  than  in 
dnearetXev  fxe  b  ??£6c  according  to  the  explanation  given  iii.  34, 
yet  were  such  the  case,  the  proposition  obdi  xzL  would  be  purely 
tautological ;  moreover,  xvi.  28,  xiii.  3,  shows  that  kqepxza&at 
ix  TOO  -deoT)  has  reference  to  the  preexistence.  As  the  thought 
unfolds,  it  presents  the  additional  fact  that  the  appearing  of 
Christ  is  the  result  of  his  coming  forth  from  God,  and  is  not  a 
thing  of  his  isolated  individuality. — Had  there  been  that  aflSn- 
ity  with  God  on  their  part,  the  whole  character  of  Christ's 
discourses  would  have  been  to  them  a  demonstration  of  their 
origin.  AaXia,  XaXetv,  the  externals  of  language ;  X.oyo!;,  Xtfecv,  of 
discourse  as  the  bearer  of  thought,  Tittmann,  de  synon.  p.  92. 
Because  the  contents  of  the  discourses  had  no  influence  on 
their  souls,  the  external  characteristics  of  them  possessed  no 
interest  to  them,  and  here  it  is  natural  to  recall  to  mind  that 
i^ouaia,  that  "  authority  "  with  which  Christ  spake,  (Matt.  vii. 
29,  John  vii.  46,)  and  perhaps,  too,  of  the  impress  which  love 
gave  to  his  language.  The  inability  expressed  in  "ye  cannot,'' 
is  to  be  regarded  as  a  natural,  moral  inability ;  Melancthon : 
Qui  veri  sint  Dei  filii  et  domestic!,  uon  possunt  paternce  domus 
ignorare  linguam,  (they  who  are  truly  sons  of  God  and  mem- 
bers of  his  family,  cannot  be  ignorant  of  the  language  of  their 
father's  house,)  cf.  what  is  said  on  x.  27,  of  the  (piovj  of  the 
good  Shepherd. 

V.  44,  45.  ITot  until  now  is  the  aim  of  that  discourse  in 
regard  to  their  father  disclosed.  The  devil  is  their  father,  for 
from  the  beginning  he  had  displayed  the  murderous  spirit  and 
the  enmity  toward  the  truth  which  they  now  display,  (v. 
37,  40,  47.)     dsXtcv  has   reference   to   that  condition  of  evil 


ClIUIST    REBUKES    HIS    OlTONENTS.  235 

in  which  it  is  no  longer  the  mere  sin  of  liaste,  but  wliere,  on 
the  contrary,  the  individual  has  willfully  fettered  himself  in 
it.  "What,  then,  Avere  those  plana  of  murder  which  the  devil 
cherished  originally?  The  majority  of  interpreters,  ancient 
and  modern,  refer  the  predicate  dv&iico-oxzovo!;  to  his  seducing 
the  first  of  mankind  into  sin,  whereby  the  ■^dvaxoa  was  origi- 
nated. But  how  can  this  be  ?  K  this  &dvazoz  be  spiritual 
destruction,  how  can  it  be  placed  in  parallel  with  these  })lans  to 
put  Christ  to  death.  This  difficulty,  derived  from  the  connec- 
tion, led  Cyrill,  and  has  led  several  of  the  recent  writers,  to 
regard  the  allusion  as  made  to  Cain's  fratricide,  which  was 
occasioned  by  the  instigation  of  Satan,  to  which,  in  fact,  John 
refers  also  in  1  John  iii.  12,  15 ;  thus  Doderlein,  J^itszch,  (Berl. 
theol.  Zeitschrift,  3  11.  p.  52,  seq.)  Liicke,  Kling,  De  Wette. 
"We  would  direct  attention  to  an  additional  circumstance  w^hich 
gives  support  to  this  view :  1  John  iii.  12  gives  special  promi- 
nence to  the  hatred  of  the  righteousness,  the  dXvj&eca,  of  Abel, 
as  furnishing  the  motive  to  his  brother  for  murdering  him — 
the  very  same  thing  is  done  by  Christ  here ;  d;r'  dp-^r^i;  creates  no 
difficulty,  for  it  has  no  reference  necessarily  to  the  original 
beginning  of  the  history  of  man.  Nevertheless,  this  exposition 
has  serious  difficulties.  First  of  all,  let  it  be  observ^ed,  that 
the  citation  from  1  John  iii.  12  does  not  present  a  perfect 
parallel,  for  there  Cain's  fratricide  is  by  no  means  designated 
as  instigated  of  Satan,  but  Cain  is  called  a  child  of  the 
devil,  because  he  killed  his  brother — a  crime  which,  according 
to  1  John  iii.  8,  can  be  charged  on  every  sinner.  If  Christ, 
without  anything  more,  declared  that  the  devil  was  a  mur- 
derer from  the  beginning,  must  we  not  presuppose  that  he 
had  reference  to  some  well  known  Jewish  tenet  ?  Still  further, 
a  genuine  parallel  is  furnished  by  John  himself,  to  wit :  in  1 
John  iii.  8  :  6  tcouov  ttju  d/xoprcav,  ix  zou  uco.^6lou  iaziu,  ozc  aK 
dpyjj^  b  dcd^oloz  d.imf)zdvs.c,  (he  that  committeth  sin  is  of  the 
devil;  for  the  devil  sinneth  from  the  beginning.)  Why  has 
neither  Liicke  nor  De  Wette  noticed  the  last  words  of  this 
passage?  It  is  conceded  that  they  refer  to  the  temptation  of 
our  first  parents,  and  this  analogy  with  the  expression  before 
us  is  so  decided,  that  Liicke  has  been  driven  to  the  inconsist- 
ency of  citing  this  passage  as  a  parallel  to  that.     In  fact,  the 


23G  Chap.  Vin.— v.  45. 

derivatiou  of  spiritual  and  bodily  death  from  the  deception  of 
our  first  parents  by  Satan,  is  in  the  Jewish  theolog}^  also,  a 
prevalent  doctrine,  a  doctrine  which  we  find  in  Wisdom  of 
Solom.  ii.  24,  Hebrews  ii.  14,  and  in  the  Kabbinical  writings,  cf. 
Tholuck's  Kommentar  zu  Rom.  v.  12,  (4th  ed.)  p.  254,  It  is 
certainly  most  natural  then  to  think  of  this  reference.  But  it 
may  be  asked,  how  does  this  reference  suit  in  the  connection? 
Very  well,  in  our  judgment,  even  if  under  d-vd^poiTzoxibvoc,  we 
were  to  suppose  an  allusion  to  spiritual  death  merely,  and  to 
that  solitary  fact,  (of  the  temptation,)  since  it  is  acknowledged 
that  the  ideas  of  spiritual  and  of  bodily  death  and  d^dng,  through 
the  Scriptures  in  general,  and  especially  in  that  very  passage  in 
1  John  iii.  12, 15,  run  into  each  other.  "We  do  not  regard  it  as 
in  the  least  surprising,  that  in  John  the  Jewish  lust  of  murder  is 
placed  in  parallel  with  .the  spiritual  murder  of  our  first  parents 
by  Satan.  But  let  it  be  remembered,  that  the  derivation  of 
bodily  death  from  that  deceiving  of  the  first  pair,  was  also  an 
established  doctrine,  (cf.  Wisd.  of  Sol.  ii.  24,  Heb.  ii.  14/)  and 
what  then,  if  Christ  preeminently  had  allusion  to  tliat?  (Thus 
Luther,  Th.  xxii.  p.  1094,  Lyser,  Gerhard,  Loci  T.  xvii.  p.  32, 
Tittmann,  Krabbe,  die  Lehre  von  der  Siinde  und  vom  Tode,  p. 
134,  seq.^) — ^Yet  further,  it  would  in  John,  least  of  all,  occasion 
surprise,  if,  after  the  analogy  of  the  d-ixaprdvec,  1  John  iii. 
8,  (cf.  Llicke,)  the  words  duSpcoTToxTouoi;  rju  dn  dpyrjC.  bore  in 
them  a  reference  to'  more  than  one  incitement  to  murder, 
and   included    the    instigation   to    fratricide,'   (thus    Nonnus, 

1  In  those  Rabbinical  passages,  to  be  sure,  as  also  in  tlie  passage  from  Soliar 
Chadasch,  (which  by  the  way  may  not  be  older  than  the  fifteenth  or  the  sixteenth 
century,  cf.  Tholuck's  Dissert,  de  ortu  Cabbalse,  p.  15,)  f.  xxvii.  3,  tynJT  ''U3 
nU.O  j';n>;i  p;"'.3  ~  ^^"7^  nnxS  Vtap-I  'JOipn  "  tU  children  of  that  old  serpmt  who 
has  slam  Adam  and  all  his  posterity ," — in  these  passages,  we  say,  bodily  death  is  not 
expressly  mentioned,  yet  it  certainly  is,  if  not  exclusively,  yet  mainly  what  is 
meant,  (see  Tholuck's  Kommentar  zum  Br.  an  d.  Hebr.  2d  ed.  p.  174,  and  zum  Br. 
an  d.  Rom.  p.  247.) 

2  In  the  controversy  with  Krabbe,  Mau,  1.  c.  p.  94,  opposes  to  this  view  the  argu- 
ment, that  the  viodc  in  which  the  devil  wrought  the  death  of  our  first  parents  does 
not  correspond  with  the  mode  in  which  the  .Jews  sought  to  put  Jesus  to  death;  but 
is  there  not  a  sufl&cient  parallel  in  the  fact  that  both  parties  were  impelled  by  hatred 
of  the  truth,  in  their  desire  to  destroy  ? 

3  In  the  farailar  passage  in  Theoph.  ad  Autol.  ii.  29,  in  Satan's  seduction  of  our 
first  parents,  the  physical  murder  is  also  regarded  as  his  proper  intent,  and  his 
drawing  Cain  on  to  the  murder  of  his  brother  is  regarded  as  a  sequel  to  the  seduc- 
tion of  Adam,  to  wit :  that  as  Adam,  despite  the  fall,  lived  and  begat  children,  he 
might  in  this  way  bring  death  into  the  world. 


Christ  rebukes  his  Opponents.  237 

Enthymius,  Theodorus  lieraklcir,  in  Catena  patrum.)  To 
bring  out  that  parallel  clearly,  it  certainly  would  have  been 
noticed  that  this  murder  of  Satan's  was  occasioned  by  his 
hatred  of  the  truth  ;  instead  of  which  it  simply  says,  that  he  zvas 
an  enemy  to  the  truth,  and  that  this  enmity  formed  his  proper 
character. — 'A?.i^^eca,  with  retrospective  regard  to  the  beguiling 
of  our  first  parents  bj'  folsehood,  and  with  prospective  regard  to 
the  woixls  which  immediately  follow,  has  ordinarily  been  under- 
stood of  truth  in  opposition  to  falsehood ;  by  Origen,  however, 
Augustine,  Beza,  Heumann,  and  by  recent  writers,  it  has  been 
taken  in  the  philosophic  sense  of  John,  the  sense  of  real  being, 
60  as  to  embrace  at  once  theoretic  and  practical  truth.  " Earr^xtv, 
by  the  Vulgate,  Luther,  and  all  the  expositors  down  to  Bengel, 
(by  V.  Coin  also,  Bibl.  Theolog.  ii.  71,)  is  taken  as  the  preterit, 
and  the  passage  has  consequently  been  used  as  a  dictum  probans, 
(]^)roof  text,)  for  the  fall  of  the  devil,  (2  Pet.  ii.  4 ;)  only  by  Marck, 
(Exercitat.  textual.)  was  brought  out  this  idea,  that  \i  aX.  desig- 
nates not  metaphysical  truth,  but  moral  truth  alone,  the  ear/jxev 
must  be  referred  to  the  fact  of  the  beguiling  in  the  fall  of  man. 
But  in  all  passages  of  the  N'ew  Testament,  the  preterit  is  used 
in  the  sense  of  the  present,  just  as  it  is  in  the  classics,  (John 

1.  26,  lii.  29,  xi.  56,)  thus  already  the  Syriac,  pO|.D].j^|^^jiIi 

(has  not  stood  in  the  truth,)  the  Ethiopic,  Origen,  Theophylact, 
Euthymius.  "Eazrjxev,  however,  is  not  ejitirely  synonymous 
with  lav'i,  but  has  the  force  of  "keeps  not  himself,  does  not 
persist,"'  (see  Tholuck  on  Eom.  v.  2.)  As  regards  dl.  the  con- 
nection (v.  40,  45,)  would  already  excite  the  expectation,  that 
it  would  designate  the  objective  element  of  truth,  that  is  truth 
in  the  metaphysical  sense,  as  it  is  styled  ;  this  view  is  confirmed 
by  the  ore  xzX.  which  follows,  and  which  created  the  greatest 
difl&culty  in  the  way  of  those  who  found  in  iazr^xeu  a  reference 
to  the  fall  of  Satan,  so  much  so,  indeed,  that  Augustine,  Pisca- 
tor,  Lampe  and  Lyser,  regarded  it,  as  in  v.  29,  as  a  designation 
of  the  ratio  cognoscendi,  "  for  it  is  certainly  present,"  &c.  Our 
opinion  is  that  dL  is  here  the  subjective  truth,  the  love  of  truth ; 

1  It  is  worthy  of  note  that  in  the  book  cited  by  Schottgen,  the  Book  Jalkiit  Rubeni, 
f.  136,  4,  this  identical  expression  is  used  by  Adam:  r\1JOX33  HOj;  Nbiy  "who 
Btood  not  in  the  truth."  Yet  it  must  also  be  noted  that  this  book  was  written  in 
Prague,  at  the  close  of  the  seventeenth  century  ! 


238  Chap.  VIIL  — v.  46. 

the  subjective  in  affinity  with  the  truth,  conducts  to  the  objective 
kingdom  of  the  truth,  (v.  47.)  Origen  thinks  he  must  here 
enter  on  the  knotty  question,  whether  we  can  deny  that  the 
devil  has  truth  in  this,  that  is,  in  the  formal  sense;  but  the 
connection,  (v.  45,)  directs  us  to  religious  truth ;  according  to 
James  ii.  19,  the  demons  believe  in  truth,  to  wit :  the  truth  of 
the  existence  of  God ;  but  it  is  only  His  abstract  existence  in 
w^hich  they  believe  —  had  they  the  truth  of  the  knowledge  of 
God,  they  would  not  tremble  before  him.  —  The  ore  xrX.  is  now 
unfolded  further.  In  the  case  of  him  whose  subjectivity  does 
not  bear  the  truth  in  it,  falsehood  pertains  to  his  personal  char- 
acter, {to.  Idea,  TO  cdcoD/m,)  and  his  conduct  bears  the  stamp  of  it. 
It  has  been  supposed  that  we  must  of  necessity  regard  the  ozi 
which  follows  as  causa  cognoscendi,  but  this  is  a  mistake ;  that 
the  devil  from  his  very  nature  originates  nothing  but  lies,  fol- 
lows from  the  conception  of  him  as  (peoatTjc ;  abrou  refers  to  the 
abstract  which  lies  in  (pzbax-qz,  cf.  on  Rom.  ii.  26.  This  passage 
particularly,  decides  the  question  whether  our  Saviour's  dis- 
courses involve  the  personality  of  Satan.  But  the  view  is 
still  held  by  v.  Colin,  that  "Jesus  adopts  the  prevalent 
opinions  of  the  Jews,  in  order  to  impart  in  the  minds  of  his 
hearers  an  additional  weight  to  his  moral  teachings,"  (in  Bib. 
Theol.  ii.  74 ;)  against  this  view,  see  ISTeander,  Leben  Jesu,  3d 
ed.  p.  286.  AVith  a  regard  to  verses  37,  40,  47,  we  apply  to  the 
opposers  of  Jesus  the  language  in  this  way:  "Ye  prove 
yourselves  to  be  of  the  devil's  kind,  ye  have  pleasure  in  his 
works,  for  he  plotted  the  murder  and  ruin  of  man  from  the 
beginning ;  lying  is  his  most  specific  characteristic,  and  there- 
fore ye,  too,  for  the  very  reason  that  it  is  truth  I  speak,  do 
not  believe  me." 

V.  46.  Chrysostom,  Augustine,  Luther,  (Th.  xii.  p  1721,) 
Grotius,  Heumann,  take  b-ixapxia  in  the  sense  of  "sin,"  while 
on  the  other  side,  a  large  majority,  induced  by  the  connection, 
have  preferred  taking  it  in  the  sense  of  ipeudo:;  in  its  various 
shades  of  meaning,  "lie,  error,  deceit,"  thus  Origen,  Cyrill, 
Erasmus  Schmid,  Beausobre,  Bengel,  Kypke,  Mosheim,  Titt- 
mann,  Kuiuol,  Liicke,  1st  ed.,  Hase,  (Leben  Jesu,  3d  ed.  §  32.) 
Since,  however,  in  the  theology  of  Schleiermacher,  the  doc- 
trine  of  the   sinlessness   of  Christ  has   taken  the  place   of 


ClimST    REBUKES    HIS    OPPONENTS.  239 

the  Clmrch's  doctrine  of  his  deity,  a  new  effort  has  been 
manifest  to  retain  for  the  doctrine  of  the  sinlessness  of  the 
Redeemer  this  grand  dictum  probans.  Ullmaun  (Siindlosig- 
keit,  3d  ed.)  would  only  maintain,  as  at  an  earlier  period  Crcll 
and  Lampe  had  done,  the  general  idea,  "fault,"  that  is,  practical 
and  theoretical ;  but  for  the  meaning  "  sin  "  in  specie,  we  have 
the  judgment  of  Olshausen,  Liicke,  2d  and  3d  ed.,  De  Wette, 
and  even  Ullmann,  in  the  4tli  ed.  p.  67 ;  against  his  exposition 
particularly,  Christ.  Fr.  Fritszche  has  protested  in  the  pro- 
grams which  are  now  collected  in  the  Opusc.  Fritzschiorum. 
After  a  renewed  investigation,  I  must  confess,  that  for  the  pres- 
ent I  cannot  agree  with  the  expositors  last  named.  I  have 
consulted  all  the  expositors  to  whom  I  could  have  access,  who 
defend  the  meaning  "sin,"  but  have  not  been  able  to  convince 
myself  that  a  satisfactory  connection  can  be  made  out  if  their 
^  iew  be  adopted.  Let  us  examine  Liicke,  for  instance :  "  As 
Christ  elsewhere  says  in  positive  terms :  If  ye  will  not  believe 
my  words,  yet  believe  my  works,  so  here  he  says  in  negative 
terms :  Ye  do  not  believe  me,  though  I  speak  the  truth ; 
wherefore  do  ye  not?  Can  you  perchance  demonstrate  that 
instead  of  doing  the  epya  zoo  &eo~j,  (the  works  of  God,)  I  have 
been  doing  the  works  of  sin  ?  if  ye  cannot  do  this,  why  then 
do  ye  not  believe  when  it  is  truth  which  I  speak  to  you?"  But 
against  this  stands  the  fact,  that  this  very  thought,  "  if  ye  cannot 
do  this,"  is  not  expressed,  and  that  if  this  were  meant  we  would 
look  for  an  ec  de  /xtj  instead  of  ec  ok  dkrj&eiav  Uyco.  Chrysos- 
tom  and  Euthymius  apprehend  it  in  a  manner  which  grasps  the 
connection  with  yet  more  clearness  and  acuteuess:  "The  reason 
^v'hy  ye  do  not  believe  me,  is  none  other  than  downright  hatred 
of  the  truth,  d  de  /i^,  ttTiare  to  eyxk^fxa,  (if  this  be  not  so,  bring 
your  accusation ;)"  but  were  this  the  meaning  would  we  not 
expect  ydp  after  r:c,  and  as  there  is  none,  must  not  the  second 
question  be  taken  as  antithetical  to  the  first  ?  We  are  forced, 
therefore,  to  look  for  some  other  mode  of  apprehending  it. 
''Afiapria  has  in  classic  usage  the  meaning  of  "error,"  (see  Raph- 
clcng.  Annotat.  ex  Herod.,  and  Kypke,  in  loc.)  and  Bretschnei- 
der,  Lexic.  3d  ed.,  cites  from  the  Xew  Testament  itself,  several 
places,  as  properly  belonging  to  this  definition ;  Fritszche  makes 
special  reference  to  1  Cor.  xv.  34.     But  the  meaning,  "fault, 


240  Chap.  Vin.  — v.  47-56. 

error,"  will  not  answer  at  all,  since  in  that  sense  it  would  give 
an  appearance  as  if  the  dl-q&tM  of  Christ  were  the  product  of 
meditation  and  of  reflection,  while  it  is  in  fact  rather  the 
immediate  emanation  of  the  unity  of  his  self-consciousness  with 
God,  (v.  28,  ch.  vii.  17.)  "We  believe  that  Melancthon  and  Calvin 
have  hit  the  true  point,  when  they  retain  indeed  the  significa- 
tion "sin,"  but  comparing  1  Cor. iv.  4,  interpret  the  expression 
only  of  transgression  within  the  sphere  of  his  office,  and  so  far 
only  of  error.  If,  as  Tittmann  especially  does,  we  might 
take  the  dX^&tca  in  specie  of  the  doctrina  Christi  de  Ohristo,  (cf. 
55,)  the  expression  would  be  rendered  yet  more  clear;  but 
embracing  the  practical  Messianic  activity,  it  may  also  be 
interpreted:  "Have  I  in  any  case  acted  in  conflict  with  the 
iuTo^  o^  the  FsitherV 

V.  47.  The  dm  zi  in  v.  46  is  answered  here.  There  is  a 
weight  laid  anew  upon  the  motive  of  the  lust  of  murder  and 
of  the  opposition  in  general ;  the  great  truth  which  had  already 
in  iii.  20,  21,  been  intimated,  is  now  expressed  in  so  many 
words,  cf  V.  42,  ch.  vi.  44,  45,  x.  27,  xviii.  37. 

Y.  48-51.  The  jy/^sr^  and  au  may  show  that  a  retort  was 
made  on  the  part  of  the  Jews.  The  reproach  of  illegitimacy 
they  meet  with  the  counter  one,  "thou  art  a  Samaritan,"  one 
of  a  nation  a  majority  of  whom  were  originally  heathen,  and 
whose  worship  was  impure.  He  had  called  them  "  children  of 
the  devil,"  they  declare  him  to  "  have  a  devil,"  the  result  of 
which  would  be  insanity.  The  Uyo/uev  has  perhaps  a  reference 
to  V.  27. — The  answer  of  Jesus  touches  merely  the  severest 
accusation,  that  of  diabolic  possession.  The  u/ico  has  reference 
to  the  testimony  given  by  his  words,  to  the  d?,TJ&siau  Xkyziv^  in 
which  the  testimony  of  himself  is  regarded  as  the  main  feature, 
(v.  55.)  In  place  of  the  simple  zar,  either  ok  or  o//wc  might 
be  anticipated.  The  glory  of  him  who  glorifies  the  Father 
will  be  vindicated  by  the  Father. — In  Calvin,  we  find  the 
thought,  that  in  v.  51,  Christ  addresses  those  whose  suscepti- 
bilities were  alive  to  the  truth,  and  with  him  coincides  De 
"Wette.  It  is  possible  that  in  those  words  he  had  in  his  eye  the 
hearts  of  the  more  susceptible,  and  that  in  a  certain  sense  he 
recurs  to  the  promise  in  v.  31 ;  but  we  must  nevertheless  think 
of  the  words  as  addressed  to  the  multitude,  so  that  whoever 


Christ  rebukes  his  Opponents.  241 

was  willing  to  embrace  them,  might  do  so.  Tr^pstv,  according 
to  Kuiiiol,  Wahl,  Brctschneider,  "to  observe,"  in  the  sense  of 
"perform,"  which  puts  the  loyo^  consequently  in  the  category 
of  prescription.  This  conception  of  it  is  admissible,  and  indeed 
seems  almost  enjoined  in  x\w.  21,  and  faith  may  be  looked  upon 
as  something  prescribed  by  Christ  for  us  to  perform ;  neverthe- 
less, Liicke  and  De  Wette  explain  it  as  equivalent  to  fiivecv  iv 
T.  Aoyuj,  (31,)  consequently  equivalent  to  asservare,  eondere,  and 
Meyer  even  unites  the  two  meanings,  "  to  hold  fast  as  the  rule 
of  life."  Our  word  "keep,"  (bewahren,)  can  in  fact  embrace 
both ;  if  now  the  ?.6yo::  and  the  ivzoXai  cannot  properly  be  under- 
stood of  mere  prescriptions^  but  designate  doctrine,  then  ryjpsxv, 
both  here  and  in  xv.  10,  can  the  more  readily  be  taken  in  the 
sense  of  "keep,"  cf.  also,  rr^petv  r.  kvzoXi^v,  1  Tim.  vi.  14.  The 
promise,  "he  shall  not  see  death,"  as  in  vi.  59,  means  he  shall 
not  abide  in  death,  but  shall  be  partaker  in  the  true  life,  (cf. 
xi.  25.) 

V.  52,  53.  In  his  putative  assumption,  they  see  the  evidence 
that  he  is  insane.  '^Oazc^  differs  from  the  simple  oc,  in  that  it 
includes  the  idea  of  character. 

V.  54-56.  The  Father  is  the  ultimate  cause  of  all  that 
Christ  is,  consequently  the  ground  of  his  ability  to  affirm  of 
himself  what  is  so  exalted.  As  the  Jews  are  the  servants  of 
falsehood,  inasmuch  as  they  pronounce  the  dkij&sia  of  Christ  to 
be  (pvJdo^,  Christ  would  be  a  ^£u<Tr:yc,  if  contradicting  his  pro- 
foundest  consciousness,  he  would  speak  of  himself  otherwise 
than  he  did.  The  thought  that  in  that  knowledge  of  God, 
which  Christ,  because  of  its  being  grounded  upon  his  conscious- 
ness, imputes  to  himself,  is  also  involved  the  divine  volition, 
this  thought  is  expressed  in  the  additional  words,  xal  TOpUyou 
a'jToi)  rrjpaj,  cf.  r.  iuroM:;  r.  Trarpo^  /loo  TSzijpT^xa,  xv.  10.  After 
having  thus  shown  his  right  to  affirm  of  himself  what  was  so 
great,  he  expresses  yet  more  distinctly  that  very  thing  which 
was  so  offensive  to  them,  his  superiority  over  Abraham.  Abra- 
ham received  prophecies  in  regard  to  the  Messiah,  Gen.  xvii.  16, 
xviii.  18,  xxii.  16,  seq.  and  from  these  proceeded  his  rejoicing; 
lua  is  not  equivalent  to  on,  but  is  used  to  express  the  idea 
"that  he  ivas  to  see  it,"  (see  i.  8,  and  cf.  the  use  of  lua,  xii.  23,) 

22 


242  Chap.  Vm.— v.  56-59. 

(Winer,  p.  314.  Agnew  and  Ebbeke's  Transl.  p.  367.)  The  day 
of  the  Messiah,  a  Jewish  term  of  solemnity,  used  to  express 
the  appearing  of  Christ  Luke  xvii.  22 ;  in  Paul  we  have  -fjnipa 
Tou  xupiou,  to  express  his  appearing  in  glory  at  his  second  com- 
ing. It  is  possible  that  the  expression  is  based  upon  a  current  idea 
of  the  Jews ;  when,  for  example,  after  the  promise.  Gen.  xvii. 
16,  it  is  said :  "  Then  Abraham  fell  upon  his  face  and  laughed," 
Philo  elucidates  it  thus :  fiecdufv  zf]  dcauoca,  TioXlr^c.  xac  dxpazou 
Xapac,  daocxcaapevr]!;,  (laughing  in  his  mind,  over  the  great  and 
pure  joy  which  entered  it.)  But  what  is  the  nature  of  that 
actual  seeing  and  rejoicing,  of  which  the  words  that  follow 
speak?  "With  Maldonatus,  Lampe,  Mosheim,  Kuinol,  Liicke 
and  De  Wette,  we  would  say,  that  such  a  sympathy  is  ascribed 
to  Abraham  as  that  spoken  of  in  1  Pet.  i.  12,  where  the  angels 
are  said  to  look  down  with  joy  upon  the  redemption  which 
has  been  wrought  out ;  in  Luke  ix.  31,  Moses  and  Elias  speak 
with  the  Redeemer  of  his  decease  at  Jerusalem.  On  the  other 
side,  all  the  more  ancient  expositors,  and  among  the  recent 
ones,  Olshausen,  refer  it  to  a  seeing  in  prophetic  vision,  while 
Abraham  was  yet  on  earth.  Olshausen  argues  on  these 
grounds :  1)  the  preterit  elde  would  not  answer,  for  as  Christ's 
work  was  a  thing  yet  in  progress,  the  present  would  be  indis- 
pensable ;  2)  if  in  v.  56,  the  joy  of  Abraham  in  a  Saviour  who 
had  actually  appeared,  is  alone  spoken  of,  v.  58  would  not 
cohere  with  it.  To  this,  the  answer  may  be  given :  1)  the 
preterits  elds  xac  ix^P^,  refer  to  the  circumstance  of  the  mission 
of  Christ  into  the  world;  2)  v.  58  does  not  directly  cohere 
with  V.  56,  but  is  only  called  forth  by  the  objection  of  the 
Jews.  The  objections  of  a  positive  kind  to  the  view  against 
which  we  argue,  are  as  follows :  1)  the  question  as  to  the 
nature  of  that  seeing,  of  which  the  elds  speaks.  Olshausen 
says  it  was  like  John's  seeing,  in  the  Apocalypse,  the  coming 
of  Christ — consequently,  a  prophetic  vision,  as  opposed  to  the 
promise  in  the  word.  But  we  ask,  in  what  then  had  Abraham 
a  prerogative  beyond  that  of  other  prophets  ?  Is  it  not  said, 
xii.  41,  of  Isaiah :  elds  tyjv  do^av  abzob  ?  And  again  in  Matt, 
xiii.  17,  Luke  x.  24,  that  the  prophets  longed  to  see  the  day  of 
Messiah,  from  which  it  may  be  inferred,  that  those  visions 


Christ  rebukes  nis  Opponents.  243 

insured  them  no  full  and  perfect  enjoyment.  2)  An  apocalypse 
so  inspiring,  must  have  formed  a  grand  era  in  the  life  of  Abra- 
ham, and  could  not  well  have  been  passed  over  without  men- 
tion. Olshausen  attempts,  indeed,  in  his  3d  ed.,  to  meet  these 
difficulties,  but  not,  as  it  seems  to  us,  with  valid  reasons. 

V.  57-59.  In  order  to  bring  home  their  sarcasm,  they  give 
a  turn  to  the  words  of  Christ,  as  if  he  pretended  to  have  seen 
AbraJiam.  Tliey  mention  fifty  years  as  the  term  of  a  full  human 
life,  (Josephus  does  the  same,)  a  term  at  which  also  the  Levites 
vacated  their  office :  "  You  who  have  not  yet  lived  out  the  half 
century,  pretend  to  have  seen  Abraham!"^  That  very  thing  at 
which  they  direct  their  scorn  and  ridicule,  Jesus  could  in  a  cer- 
tain sense  affirm  of  himself.  "* Eyco  ei/a  might,  as  in  other  places, 
mean:  "It  is  I,"  but  in  this  place  the  connection  demands:  "I 
am."  Ecfxi  is  used  to  express  a  former  condition  which  is  con- 
tinued in  the  present,  as  in  xiv.  9,  xv.  27,  Luke  xv.  29,  Colos.  i. 
17,  (cf.  Biihr,)  Jer.  i.  5,  Septuagint:  rtpb  zoi)  /xs  T-JAaac  as  iu 
xoi/.la  Izlazatiai  (7c,  cf.  what  is  said  on  viii.  25,  and  in  the  Greek, 
the  formulas  oxo'mo,  dorxw,  (Bernhardy,  Syntax,  p.  870,)  in  Latin, 
audio,  video,  and  in  English,  I  understand.  Fevia&ac  forms, 
as  i.  6,  15,  the  antithesis.  In  this  is  involved  the  preexistence, 
as  in  vi.  63,  viii.  42,  xiii.  3,  x\n.  28,  xvii.  5,  and  in  the  Synop- 
tists.  Matt,  xxiii.  37  and  34,  cf  Luke  xiii.  34,  Crell,  Grotius 
and  Paulus  interpret  the  expression  of  the  previous  destination 
of  the  Messiah;  but  there  would  have  been  nothing  in  this 
peculiar  to  him,  and  it  would  not  have  implied  that  there  was 
some  truth  in  what  the  Jews  had  so  scornfully  deduced  from 
his  words.*  This  putative  arrogance  seemed  to  involve  blas- 
phemy, in  view  of  which  the  spirit  of  fanaticism  suggested  the 
idea  of  stoning  him,  (x.  31,  Acts  vii.  59.)  A  disposition  might 
be  felt  as  regards  ixpu^r^,  connected  as  it  is  by  xat  with  iqrjX&tv^ 

1  Heumann:  "The  journeys  and  the  other  hardships  which  Jesus  underwent, 
account  for  his  looking  so  old."  (I) 

'  As  a  matter  of  history  merely,  the  exegesis  of  F.  Socinius  yet  requires  mention. 
He  says:  (contra  Volanuui,  p.  37,)  Antequam  Abraham  fiat  Abraham,  i.  e.  pater 
raultarum  gentium,  ego  sum  Messias.  Sic  monet,  antequam  gentibus  concedatur, 
ut  populus  Dei  sint,  crcdendum  esse  Christo,  (before  Abraham  sliall  become  Abra- 
ham, that  is,  father  of  many  nations,  I  am  Messiah.  Thus  he  reminds  them  that 
before  the  Gentiles  can  become  the  people  of  God  they  must  believe  in  Christ.)  A 
confutation  of  this  view  may  be  found  in  Calovius,  Ex.  1,  in  Triga  exercitat.  Anti- 
Bocin.,  and  in  Episcopius,  Instit.  thcol.  1.  iv.  c.  33. 


244  Chap.  Vm.  — v.  59. 

to  take  it  as  determining  adverbially  the  meaning  of  the  latter 
and  equivalent  to  xpuf^,  (secretly,)  but  such  an  interpretation 
has  not  an  adequate  ground ;  Jesus  withdraws  himself  into  the 
crowd,  and  is  thus  able  to  pass  out  unobserved,  (TViner,  p.  349 ;) 
there  is  not  in  this  the  intimation  of  a  miracle  indeed,  in  the 
strict  sense  of  the  word,  but  there  is  of  a  special  providence, 
(Jer.  xxxvi.  26.)  JisX^iov — o5rwc  is,  on  external  and  internal 
grounds,  to  be  thrown  out  of  the  text,  and  is  evidently  copied 
after  the  words  in  Luke  iv.  30. 


CHAPTER   IX. 


Healing  of  the  Man  that  was  born  Blind. — v.  1-41. 

V.  1.     Though  the  closing  words  of  viii.  59  be  spurious,  yet 
the  connection  of  this  verse  is  such,  that  what  is  here  narra- 
ted, and  consequently  also  the  discourses  in  chap.  x.  which  are 
so  clearly  united  with  it,  appear  to  have  occurred  immediately 
afterward,  and  Tzapdyeiu  seems  to  mean  "to  depart,"  (Matt.  ix. 
9 ;)  this  view  is  favored  besides  by  the  fact,  that  beggars  were 
accustomed  to  stay  in  the  vicinity  of  the  temple,  (  Acts  iii.  3,) 
and  that  the  pool  to  which  the  blind  man  was  sent  lay  in  the 
Tyropoeon,  not  far  from  the  mount  on  which  the  temple  stood. 
Yet  if  Jesus  concealed  himself  in  the  crowd  in  order  to  go  out 
of  the  temple  without  being  observed,  it   is  improbable  that 
the  Disciples  would  at  once  have  gathered  around  him  again ; 
it  is  possible,  therefore,  that  this  occurrence  is  to  be  referred 
to  another  day,  and  that  Tzapdyscu  means  "to  pass  by,"  in  which 
case  John  would  connect  the  occurrences  with  the  same  disre- 
gard of  chronological  sequence  which  is  shown  in  some  cases 
by  the  Synoptists. — The  narrative  of  this  miracle  has  a  special 
value  in  Apologetics.     How  often  do  we  hear  the  expression 
of  a  wish,  that  the  miracles  of  Christ  had  been  put  upon  docu- 
mentary record,  and  had  been  subjected  to  a  thorough  judicial 
investigation.     Here  we  have  the  very  thing  that  is  desired; 
judicial   personages — and  those,  too,  the  avowed  enemies  of 
Christ — investigate  the  miracle  in  repeated  hearings,  and — it 
holds  its  ground :  a  man  blind  from  his  birth  has  been  made  to 
see ;  besides  this,   the  credibility  of  the  narrative  derives   a 
special  confirmation  from  the  highly  significant  delineation  of 
the  characteristics  of  the  man  who  was  born  blind,  a  sturdy, 
blunt  man  of  the  people.     According  to  Strauss  (2d  part,  p.  75, 

a  22*  (245) 


246  Chap.  IX.— v.  2-5. 

4th  ed.)  and  Bauer,  the  vivid  delineation  and  careful  authentica- 
tion are  purely  fabricated. — When  the  Apologist  finds  himself 
cut  off  in  this  style  from  escape  alike  by  land  or  sea,  he  has 
nothing  left  on  which  to  build  an  argument,  unless  indeed  he 
builds  one  on  the  animus,  in  which  it  is  very  clear  this  sort  of 
criticism  originates.  Cf.  on  this  narrative,  Zorn,  Opuscula 
sacra,  i.  p.  252,  seq. 

V.  2.  The  fact  that  the  Disciples  know  at  the  outstart  that 
the  man  was  born  blind,  is  considered  by  Bauer  as  sufiicient  in 
itself  to  show  that  this  history  is  a  mere  fabrication — but  may 
not  the  Disciples  have  learned  this  fact  previously,  or  even  have 
heard  it  from  bystanders?  If  Iva  be  urged,  it  Avould  be  neces- 
sary to  translate  :  "  that  it  was  of  need  he  should  be  born  blind," 
cf.  what  is  said  on  iv.  34.  As  the  idea  of  a  man's  being  horn 
blind  on  account  of  sinning  in  person,  appears  to  have  no 
meaning,  Crell  and  Lampe  have  taken  the  sentence  thus : 
"Has  he,  or  (as  this  cannot  be,)  have  his  parents  grievously 
sinned?"  In  the  judgment  of  Calvin,  Beza,  Grotius,  the 
belief  of  a  metempsychosis,  according  to  De  "Wette,  the  belief 
of  the  preexistence  of  souls,  according  to  Lightfoot  and  Liicke, 
a  belief  of  the  possibility  that  the  embryo  could  sin,  is  to  be 
imputed  to  the  Disciples ;  but  it  is  doubtful  whether  we  have 
good  reason  for  supposing  such  opinions  to  be  current  among 
the  people.^     It  seems  to  us  that  v.  34  puts  us  on  the  track  to 

1  Among  the  Jews  of  the  Middle  Ages,  especially  among  the  Cabbalists,  the  doc- 
trine of  the  metempsychosis  was  widely  received;  according  to  Beer,  (Lehren  and 
Meinungen,  der  Juden,  ii.  p.  135,)  the  Cabbalists  teach,  in  so  many  words,  that 
blindness  is  to  be  accounted  for,  by  ndopting  the  view  of  a  metempsychosis.  But 
the  learned  Manasse  Ben  Israel,  (at  the  end  of  the  seventeenth  century.)  who  main- 
tained that  this  doctrine  has  been  universally  received,  could  appeal  to  nothing 
except  the  Sohar,  a  book  which  was  written  in  the  later  part  of  the  Middle  Ages. 
Josephus,  however,  renders  some  aid.  The  well-known  passages  in  Josephus,  de 
bello  jud.  viii.  8,  14,  and  xviii.  1,  3,  certainly  allow  of  an  interpretation  which 
would  find  in  them  a  reference  to  the  resurrection ;  but  on  the  other  hand,  the  passage 
viii.  8,  5,  hardly  allows  of  a  natural  interpretation,  which  would  deny  that  it  gives 
evidence  of  an  adoption  of  the  doctrine  of  metempsychosis. — The  doctrine  of  the  preex- 
istence of  souls  is  found  in  Philo  and  in  Wisdom  of  Solomon,  viii,  19,  (for  the  explana- 
tion given  by  Baumgarten-Crusius,  Bibl.  Theol.  p.  101,  is  inadmissible,  and  what  more- 
over is  said  by  Bauer,  1.  c.  p.  343,  is  not  to  the  point,)  but  this  does  not  throw  light 
upon  the  passage  before  us,  for  this  Platonic  doctrine  of  preexistence,  of  which  we 
find  a  trace  in  Josephus  also,  (adv.  Ap.  ii.  24,)  hardly  justifies  the  inference  that 
evil  souls  were  thought  to  have  preexisted,  though  D.ahne  (Alex.  Religionsphil.  ii. 
p.  108,)  has  adopted  this  view,  in  which  he  follows  Eichhorn.  What  the  Rabbins 
(quoted  l)y  Lightfoot  and  Schottgen,)  say  of  sinning  on  the  part  of  the  embryo  in 
the  womb,  (Gen.  xxv.  22,)  is  perhaps  merely  to  be  regarded  as  the  private  opinion 
of  particular  individuals. 


IIealing  of  the  Man  that  was  born  Blind.        247 

the  true  view ;  the  Pharisees,  in  that  verse,  say  that  the  man 
was  ^^ altogether  {oXoz^y  and  consequently,  in  soul  and  body, 
"born  in  sins."  As  among  us,  the  people  have  the  phrase, 
"such  a  man  was  born  with  a  mark  on  him,"  may  not  this, 
though  indeed  not  clearly  expressed,  (Neauder,) — for  the  term 
is  TJ/xapreu — may  not  this  have  been  the  meaning  of  the  Disci- 
ples? 

V.  3.  As  to  the  judgment  we  are  to  form  regarding  the 
teleological  import  which  our  Lord  assigns  to  the  misfortune 
of  this  man,  so  much  may  be  safely  affirmed,  that  as  nothing  in 
the  universe  stands  isolated,  but  everything  is  connected  with  the 
whole,  each  single  existence,  and  each  single  condition,  has  as 
many  aims  as  there  are  relations  between  it  and  other  things ; 
the  aim,  therefore,  which  our  Lord  here  mentions,  cannot  be 
regarded  as  the  only  one,  (cf.  on  Rom.  xi.  11,)  but  the  aim  here 
spoken  of  was  one  which  God  contemplated,  (xi.  4.)  "Epya 
To~j  Szou,  "the  works  willed  and  wrought  of  God,"  and  here  in 
specie,  those  performed  by  the  Messiah,    "ha  as  in  i.  8,  xiii.  18. 

V.  4,  5.  This  declaration  would  seem  to  have  an  object 
only  in  case  the  hearers  may  be  presumed  to  have  had  in  their 
minds  some  obstacle  which  might  be  interposed  in  the  way  of 
the  healing;  its  performance  on  the  Sabbath  may  have  been 
such  an  obstacle,  though  this  circumstance  is  not  brought  up 
till  V.  14.  It  is  possible  that  the  Saviour  contemplated  only 
the  approaching  hour  of  death.  '^Hjiifta  and  vj^,  the  time  of 
toil,  and  the  time  of  rest ;  with  this  time  of  toil,  the  lifetime  is 
made  parallel.  "Orav  is  translated  by  the  Vulgate  and  Luther, 
"as  long  as,"  and  this  translation  has  been  the  received  one  up 
to  a  very  recent  period,  until  Fritzsche,  in  his  Comm.  in  Marc, 
p.  86,  questioned  whether  such  can  be  its  meaning;  he  pre- 
fers the  causal  signification,  "  quandoquidem,"  "since  indeed," 
(in  which  sense  Zwingle  already  had  taken  it ;)  Wahl,  Meyer, 
Liicke,  De  "Wette,  have  since  taken  the  same  view.  It  does 
not  fit  very  well  in  the  connection,  and — has  it  the  linguistic 
vouchers  ?  Fritzsche  makes  a  reference  to  Plato,  Euthyd.  §  56, 
cd.  Ileind.  or  p.  295,  Steph.,  but  in  that  passage,  orav  certainly 
means  no  more  than  "when,"  cf.  Schleicrmacher;  on  the  other 
hand,  it  certainly  seems  justified  by  the  passage  which  Viger 
cites  from  Aristotle,  de  Mundo,  c.  4.  ed.  Becker,  T.  i.  p.  395, 


248  Chap.  IX.  — v.  6,  7. 

but  Kapp,  in  his  edition,  objects  to  that  reading,  and  pro- 
poses to  read  ozi  dv.  We  think  that  the  temporal  meaning 
is  entirely  in  place ;  quo  tempore,  as  Bretschneider  interprets 
it,  the  sense  of  which  is  quamdiu,  (so  also  Kling  takes  it.)  (?a5c 
glances  back  at  viii.  12,  but  here  has  a  more  special  reference  to 
the  natural  light,  which  was  to  be  restored  to  the  blind  man, 
cf.  V.  39. 

V.  6,  7.  In  other  instances,  also,  external  means  were 
employed,  in  miraculous  healings,  2  Kings  iv.  41,  Isa.  xxxviii. 
21,  Mark  vii.  33,  and.  in  the  case  of  a  blind,  man,  Mark  viii. 
23.  That  in  saliva  there  was  not  only  in  general  a  healing 
virtue,  but  that  it  had  a  specific  efficacy  in  diseases  of  the  eye, 
is  mentioned  by  Pliny,  Hist,  natur.  xxviii.  7.  Serenus  Sam- 
monicus.  Carmen  de  medicina,  c.  13,  v.  225,  says :  Si  tumor 
insolitus  typho  se  tollat  inani,  turgentes  oculos  viii  circumline 
cceno,  (if  an  unwonted  tumor  rise  in  empty  pride,  besmear  thy 
swollen  eyes  all  o'er  with  loathsome  mire;)  the  same  fact  is 
show^n  by  the  history  of  the  curing  of  a  blind  man  by  the 
Emperor  Vespasian,  see  Suetonius,  vita  Vespas.  c.  7,  Tacitus, 
Histor.  iv.  81,  likewise,  cf.  the  Rabbins  in  Lightfoot  on  this 
passage.  That  therapeutic  power  was  of  course  limited,  how- 
ever, to  the  mere  alleviation  of  inflammations,  tumors,  &c. 
Even  Dr.  Paulus  has  an  insight  into  the  fact,  that  a  man 
born  blind,  could  not  have  obtained  his  vision  through  the 
external  means  emplo3'ed  by  Jesus,  and  his  way  of  getting  out 
of  the  difficulty  is  too  characteristic  to  be  omitted  here.  "Per- 
haps Jesus,  w^hile  he  was  mixing  other  ingredients  to  make 
something  to  spread  on  the  man's  eyes,  accidently  spat,  and  the 
blind  man  imagined,  consequently,  that  the  eye-salve  was  made 
with  the  spittle."  (!)  For  the  very  reason,  however,  that  these 
outward  means  appeared  in  themselves  unnecessary,  the  fathers 
have  tried  their  strength  in  allegorical  explanations  of  them, 
or,  like  Chrysostom  and  Theophylact,  (Melancthon  and  Calvin 
do  the  same,)  assume  that  some  moral  object  was  contemplated, 
the  object  of  arousing  the  popular  observation  more  thoroughly 
by  the  man's  going  to  the  pool,  or  of  putting  the  blind  man's 
faith  to  the  test,  or  of  giving  his  faith,  yet  feeble,  some  out- 
ward action  to  which  it  might  cling.  We  suppose  that  as  in 
several  cases,  the  look,   the  hand,  the  spittle  of  the  Saviour 


IIealinq  of  the  Man  that  was  boun  Blind.         249 

serves  as  the  medium,  (analogously  to  cases  of  magnetic  influ- 
ence,) the  liealing  power  of  Jesus  in  these  particular  cases 
employed,  in  fact,  certain  "conductors,"  cf.  Tholuck's  Ver- 
mischte  Schriften,  Th.  i.  p.  80.  As  regards  the  washing  in  the 
pool,  even  some  of  the  Rabbins,  (see  Schottgen,)  as  also  some 
recent  travelers,  attribute  to  the  pool  medicinal  qualities,  see 
Robinson,  ii.  p.  155,  (last  edition  in  English,  i.  341 ;)  we  think, 
however,  that  the  blind  man  was  dispatched  to  the  pool  with 
no  other  object  than  that  he  might  cleanse  himself  after  the 
application  to  his  eyes  had  done  its  work.  The  etc  after  vi(pat 
is  perhaps  to  be  explained  by  the  formula,  Xouza&ac  ic  ^^ouTpa)ua<:y 
"to  go  to  the  bath-house  to  bathe,"  (Passow,)  or  even  "wash- 
ing off  therein;"  the  article  too  is  neuter,  as  in  Luke  xiii.  4, 
and  in  Josephus,  de  bello  Jud.  ii.  16,  2,  vi.  7,  2,  where  he 
speaks  of  the  country  around  the  fountain.  The  pool  lies  at 
the  entrance  of  the  TjTopoeon,  south  of  the  temple-mount. 
The  interpretation  which  John  gives  of  the  name  Hdiod/j.  has 
at  a  recent  date  been  pronounced  ungrammatical ;  Liicke,  1st 
ed.,  says :  "  One  is  reluctant  to  believe  that  John  understood 
his  own  vernacular  no  better  than  this."  I  have,  however,  in 
my  contributions  to  the  philology  of  the  jS'ew  Testament, 
(Spracherkllirung  des  IST.  T.  p.  120,  seq.)  directed  attention  to 
the  fact  that  the  yod  in  nh^iff,  is  to  be  regarded  as  dagesh  forte 
resolved,  and  that  the  word  is,  consequentl}^,  to  be  regarded 
either  as  the  abstract,  equivalent  to  nSx;,  effusio,^  that  is,  aque- 
duct, or  may  even  be  like  the  form  nib%  2rx,  passively,  equiva- 
lent to  "the  one  sent;"  the  former  view  is  approved  by  Gesen- 
ius ;  Hitzig  has  brought  out  the  latter,  Komm,  z.  Jes.  p.  97. 
The  question  now  arises,  what  is  the  Evangelist's  object  in 
making  this  remark?  Is  it  a  purely  etymological  gloss?  (01s- 
hausen.)  But  such  a  gloss  here  would  be  entirely  without  an 
object,  and  no  such  gloss  is  given  even  in  ch.  v.  2.  The  Evan- 
gelist, consequently,  must  be  supposed  to  have  discovered  in  that 
denomination  a  significance,  something  providential.  This  he 
has  found  either  in  reference  to  the  blind  man  who  was  sent, 
Bengcl:  Et  ab  hoc  tempore  nomen  loci  erat  monumentum  mi- 
raculi  facti,  (and  from  henceforth  the  name  of  the  place  was  a 
memorial  of  the  miracle  that  had  been  done  ;)  or  he  meant 

1  This  word  also  allows  of  a  passive  translation,  ffush,  that  is,  the  fluid  emitted. 


250  Chap.  IX.— v.  8-34. 

to  intimate  that  while  the  fountain  whose  name  was  equivalent 
to  Messiah,  accomplished  the  healing,  it  was  nevertheless  Christ 
himself  who  was  the  effective  operator  of  it,  (Theophylact, 
Beza.) — No  mention  is  made  of  the  man's  being  led  to  the 
pool,  but  the  connection  leads  us  to  suppose  that  it  was  done. 

V.  8-12.  It  is  evident  that  the  man  had  often  been  the 
object  of  notice  on  the  part  of  passers-by,  and  was  conse- 
quently well  known.  If  the  text  does  not  lead  to  the  infer- 
ence that  the  desire  to  seek  out  Jesus  (v.  12,)  arose  from  a  bad 
motive,  yet  we  are  compelled  to  suppose  a  motive  of  that  sort 
as  having  prompted  their  laying  of  the  matter  before  the 
Pharisees. 

V.  13-16.  The  people  fix  their  attention  on  the  collateral 
circumstance  that  by  this  healing  the  Sabbath  had  been  broken ; 
in  this  the  Triy^.ov  iTzocr^aev  is  the  main  fact,  and  on  this  the  ques- 
tion of  the  Pharisees,  in  v.  15,  turns.  According  to  Lightfoot, 
it  was  expressly  forbidden  by  some  of  the  Rabbins,  to  apply 
saliva  to  the  eyelids  on  the  Sabbath ;  others,  on  the  contrary, 
did  allow  this  to  be  done  in  the  case  of  inflammation  of  the 
eyes.  In  this  respect  even,  we  see  that  not  all  Pharisees  were 
in  the  bonds  of  prejudice  to  the  same  degree.  Ilapa  too  ^tdb, 
a  designation  of  a  prophet,  cf  v.  17,  29,  33,  &/iapT0)X6^  here  in 
specie,  contemner  of  God,  cf.  v.  31. 

V.  17-23.  As  the  argument  to  sustain  the  charge  that 
Christ  had  broken  the  Sabbath  was  not  satisfactory  to  all  the 
members  of  the  Sanhedrim,  the  very  man  who  was  healed 
must  be  brought  to  sustain  it,  but  the  man  proves  to  have  cour- 
age enough  to  express  his  convictions.  ^'Otc,  in  v.  17,  used  as 
in  ii.  18.  As  the  man  who  had  been  healed,  gave  no  support 
to  what  they  had  in  view,  they  imagine  that  by  summoning  his 
parents  they  can  make  out  a  case  of  deception.  In  the  answers 
of  the  parents,  a  character  like  that  of  their  son  is  exhibited,  a 
certain  bluntness  in  conjunction  with  prudence.  'Hhxlav  i^siy 
to  wit :  an  age  at  which  he  is  competent  to  testify  in  court  for 
himself.  Just  as  in  ch.  xi.  57,  the  Ivvol-j  is  not  dated,  so  in  this 
place,  no  mention  is  made  of  the  time  at  which  the  high  coun- 
cil had  made  the  aov&ijxrj,  (not  so  much  decree  as  agreement,) 
of  which  V.  22  speaks. 

V.  24-27.    During  the  examination  of  the  parents,  the  man 


Healing  of  the  Man  that  was  born  Blind.         251 

had  been  dismissed ;  he  is  now  recalled,  and  the  attempt  made 
to  excite  his  fear  by  the  authority  of  the  hierarchy.  Joe  do^ay^, 
we  give  God  the  glory,  which  is  His  due,  when  we  acknowledge 
his  attributes,  especially  his  omniscience,  (Jos.  vii.  19,  Ezra  x. 
11,)  by  our  acts.  The  answer  of  the  man  is  more  reserved  in 
its  character  this  time.  In  the  hope  of  discovering  a  contra- 
diction, or  of  finding  some  reason  for  suspicion,  they  repeat  the 
question  as  to  hoiv  it  was  done,  but  at  this  juncture  the  indig- 
nation of  the  plain,  sturdy  man  appears  in  such  strength,  as  to 
pass  over  into  scorn.     Obx  i^xouaavsy  "ye  have  had  no  ears." 

V.  28-33.  They  retaliate  his  sarcasm  with  abuse,  and  desig- 
nate it  a  shame  in  itself  to  be  a  Disciple  of  Jesus,  whose  char- 
acter nobody  knew,  (see  on  vii.  27,)  while,  on  the  other  hand, 
Moses  was  the  receiver  of  a  revelation  from  God.  The  man 
that  had  been  healed,  rejoins  with  irony  indeed,  {daunaoTov 
iarcv,)  but  with  the  energy  of  simple-hearted  straight-forward- 
ness, rdp,  elliptical,  "  speak  not  thus,"  like  the  German  "  denn 
doch,"  (still,  nevertheless,)  cf.  the  usage  in  answers,  Acts  viii. 
31, 1  Cor.  ix.  9.  ''Ev  toutw,  "  in  such  a  case  as  that  before  us,"  (iv. 
37.)  The  Tiod^si^  he  explains  in  v.  33  by  7:apd  ■deoh. — 'AfiapnoXo^, 
as  is  clear  from  the  antithesis,  means  a  contemner  of  God.  Cf. 
Isa.  i.  15,  Ps.  Ixvi.  18.  Homer's  Iliad,  i.  218:  o^  xs  i^soTc 
izcTTscOr^rai,  fidXa  r  ixXuov  auTOO.  The  courage  of  the  man  had 
grown  strong  in  the  contest,  (v.  25.) 

V.  34.  Grotius  explains  oXo:;  as  a  hyperbole,  "from  youth 
up;"  Maldonatus  and  De  Wette  regard  it  as  equivalent  to  oXod^, 
but  if  that  had  been  its  sense,  iysvuij&y^^  would  not  have  been 
used;  more  correctly,  "in  body  and  soul,"  so  that  the  defect 
of  the  body  revealed  the  pollution  of  the  soul,  (this  is  what 
Chrysostom  means,  though  he  seems  to  coincide  with  Grotius.) 
A  hierarchical  haughtiness,  such  as  displayed  itself  in  vii.  49, 
must  have  been  thoroughly  aroused  by  this  kind  of  treat- 
ment. 'Ex,3d?jM,  simply  conjoined  with  i^co,  (vi.  37,  xii.  31,) 
seems  to  imply  no  more  than  the  casting  out  from  the  hall  of 
their  sessions,  (Fritzsche,)  but  the  importance  attached  by 
Jesus  to  this  occurrence,  v.  22,  leads  us  rather  to  suppose  that 
the  word  involves  an  exclusion  from  the  congregation,  (01s- 
hausen,  De  Wette;)  in  the  Christian  Church,  the  formula, 
ix^dXXecv  TTjt;  hxXrjaia^,  was  used. 


252  Chap.  IX.— v.  35-41. 

V.  35-38.  As  in  ch.  v.  14,  Jesus  in  this  case  also  had  con- 
ferred the  benefit,  without  connecting  instruction  with  it;  this 
he  now  does,  when  the  experience  gained  by  the  man  has 
heightened  his  tendency  to  faith.  On  account  of  the  courage 
which,  prompted  by  his  faith,  he  has  displayed,  Christ  regards 
him  as  worthy  to  hear  the  whole  truth.  The  question  embra- 
ces the  more,  inasmuch  as  it  already  presupposes  faith,  though 
no  more  than  the  willingness  to  believe  could  be  counted  upon. 
Cyrill  and  Chrysostom  think  that  au  may  be  emphatic,  "art 
thou  he  who  believeth,  &c."  but  this  is  itself  inadmissible,  and 
au  in  other  places  comes  first,  without  being  emphatic,  (viii.  88, 
xviii.  34.)  Shall  we  say  that  the  man  knew  who  was  speaking 
with  him?  Theophylact,  Erasmus  and  Lampe,  not  without 
reason,  deny  that  he  did ;  when  Jesus  sent  him  to  the  pool,  he 
was  yet  unable  to  see,  and  on  his  return,  it  seems  that  he  did 
not  find  Jesus.  But  would  a  blunt  man,  such  as  he,  addressed 
in  this  manner  by  a  stranger,  meet  him  at  once  with  a  ques- 
tion involving  confidence  in  him?  The  conjecture  is  indeed 
more  probable,  that  he  recognized  Jesus — we  M'ill  not  say  by 
his  voice,  but  would  prefer  the  supposition  that  some  further 
words,  not  mentioned  here,  were  exchanged.  Till  now  he 
had  seen  but  the  prophet  in  Christ,  (v.  33,  17.)  Kal  in  v. 
36,  used  when  questions  are  put  suddenly,  as  the  xai  connects 
more  closely  with  what  has  just  been  said,  (xiv.  22.)  The 
doubtful  xai  in  v.  37,  is  to  be  explained  as  in  vi.  36.  It  is  not 
improbable  that  bpdv  in  the  kcbpaxaz,  refers  to  the  man's  having 
the  evidence  of  exjjerience  regarding  the  Messiah,  (xv.  24,  vi. 
36.)  The  lowliness,  and  the  yielding  spirit  of  the  man  toward 
Jesus,  is  in  touching  contrast  with  the  defiant  bearing  he  main- 
tains toward  the  leaders  of  the  people. 

V.  89.  This  language,  like  that  in  Matt.  xi.  25,  is  to  be 
regarded  as  the  words  uttered  aloud  in  soliloquy  by  our  Lord, 
and  suggested  by  what  had  occurred  immediately  before.  The 
man  who  had  been  blind  bodil}^  a  member  of  the  lowest 
class,  had  also  been  in  ignorance,  and  had  come  to  his  natural 
and  to  his  spiritual  sight  at  the  same  time.  "With  reference  to 
this  fact,  Jesus  speaks  of  his  own  work  as  the  light  of  the 
world ;  in  aflinity  with  the  substance  of  what  he  here  says  is 
Luke  V.  32,  xv.  7,  Matt.  xi.  25,  1  Cor.  i.  20 ;  a  similar  playing 


Healing  of  the  Man  that  was  born  Blind.        253 

over  of  the  bodily  into  the  spiritual  is  found  in  Matt.  xix.  23,  24, 
xi.  5,  viii.  22.  In  x(n{ia,  here,  as  in  xpiac;:,  iii.  19,  there  might  be  a 
temptation  to  give  prominence  merely  to  the  idea  of  separation. 
ZNvingle:  "Entscheid,"  (decision,)  and  so  also  Wahl,  but 
according  to  the  usage  xfu^ia  means  only  "judgment,"  and 
indeed  with  this  separation  is  linked  that  also  which  constitutes 
the  judgment,  to  wit:  retribution.  In  the  ?va  we  are  to  regard 
as  marked,  the  purpose,  yet  (according  to  the  anti-calvinistic 
mode  of  apprehension,)  not  the  direct  but  the  indirect  purpose, 
of.  Luke  xii.  51.  In  pij  j^?J7iovT£^  and  ^Uttovts^,  some  adhere 
solely  to  the  subjective  side,  cf.  v.  41 :  Uysre  ore  ^Urrofisv,  con- 
sequently, "who  regard  themselves  as  seemg  or  not  seeing." 
But  this  very  thing,  as  a  general  rule,  takes  place  in  the  case 
of  those  who  actually  are  either  seeing  or  blind,  we  therefore 
add  also  the  objective  side,  as  is  done  in  Matt.  xi.  25,  with 
pyjzioc  and  auvezoc,  although  indeed  the  ^Urttcv  and  auvcevac  is  but 
a  relative  one,  and  the  vi^-jzcoc  who  believe  in  Christ,  in  relation 
to  that  knoAvledge,  are  those  who  truly  see. 

V.  40,  41.  Taking  zixpXoi  with  strict  reference  to  zotploi  in 
V.  39,  we  see  that  the  Pharisees  have  observed  that  they  are 
designated  as  the  l^kerTouzei:,  but  at  the  same  time  also,  as  the 
zucfloi,  (Matt.  XV.  14.)  In  what  Jesus  utters,  the  zixploi  are  not, 
indeed,  those  who  had  become  blind,  but  those  who  were  origi- 
nally blind,  but  there  is  nothing  that  need  surprise  us  in  the 
interchange  of  these  references.  The  construction  with  ec — 
uw  di  occurs  in  the  classics,  as  it  does  several  times  in  John  also, 
chap.  viii.  40,  xv.  24.  The  proposition  oux — d/jiapzcau  is  diffi- 
cult. As  we  have  it  in  xv.  22,  24,  also,  we  naturally  desire  to 
understand  it  in  the  same  way  in  both  cases;  now  in  that 
passage  it  is  a  question  whether  6.p.apzla  designates  sin  or 
guilt  in  general,  or  the  specific  sin  and  guilt  of  unbelief; 
it  is,  however,  beyond  dispute  that  there  the  formula  means, 
"they  would  have  been  (relatively)  exempt  from  guilt  or 
exempt  from  punishment."  "We  might,  according  to  that, 
accept  Tittmann's  interpretation  here :  "  K  ye  were  unlearned 
people,  your  unbelief  in  me  might  be  forgiven,  but  as  ye  are 
learned  in  the  Scriptures,  your  sin  remains  unforgiven."  But 
would  not  this  view  entirely  lose  sight  of  the  subjective  side, 
to  which,  however,  such  special  prominence  is  given  by  the 

28 


254  Chap.  IX.  — v.  40,41. 

Xij-eTSy  which  here  means  "ye  boast,"  (Acts  v.  36.)  "We  would, 
consequently,  be  obliged  with  Liicke  to  interpret  the  latter  part 
thus:  "Were  you  without  the  capacity  for  knowledge,  there 
would  be  in  your  unbelief,  no  sin  involving  culpability,  for  in 
that  case  ye  could  not  discern  and  believe ;  so  long,  however, 
as  you  do  not  put  off  your  arrogant  self-infatuation,  your  unbe- 
lief will  not  yield."  But  taken  thus,  the  two  members  of  the 
sentence  are  not  in  correspondence.  There  has  been  an  incli- 
nation, therefore,  to  abandon  the  special  reference  to  the  sin 
of  unbelief.  "  If  ye  were  of  the  number  of  the  more  ignorant, 
who  are  wont  to  feel  the  need  of  redemption,  your  sins  might 
be  forgiven  and  your  guilt  taken  away  by  me,"  (Calvin, 
Zwingle,  Maldonatus,  De  "Wette.)  But  in  this  way  the  connec- 
tion would  be  destroyed  with  v.  39,  in  which  the  ^Xiiztcv  means 
no  more  than  "to  perceive  Christ."  We,  therefore,  despite 
what  has  been  said,  unite  with  Meyer  in  interpreting  it  of 
unbelief:  "If  ye  belonged  to  the  number  of  the  ignorant,  ye 
would,  like  them,  have  been  believers,  and  thus  would  have  been 
guiltless ;  as,  however,  ye  presume  upon  your  seeing,  ye  abide 
in  your  sin."  The  more  comprehensive  -^  6.fjL.  fxivu  in  the  an- 
tithesis, instead  of  e/ers  S-fxapuaVj  as  in  iii.  36. 


CHAPTER  X. 


Parabolic  Discourse  in  regard  to  the  Qualification  of 
THE  true  Leader  of  the  People,  and  the  conduct  of  the. 
Sheep  toward  him. — v.  1-6. 

V.  1,  2.  With  a  consciousness  of  belonging  to  those  who 
see,  these  scribes  presented  themselves  as  leaders  of  the  people, 
(Rom.  ii.  19 ;)  the  blind  man  had  given  proof  that  a  profounder 
need  of  the  soul  could  not  be  intrusted  to  the  guidance  of 
such  leaders ;  thus  occasion  was  given  for  the  following  parable. 
With  reference  to  form,  however,  the  parable  is  imperfect,  for 
the  explanation  is  wanting,  or  rather  where  it  would  naturally 
come  in,  to  wit :  at  v.  7,  we  have  a  new  turn  and  a  further 
expansion  of  the  similitude  ;  we  have  not,  moreover,  as  else- 
where in  the  parable,  some  progressive  occurrence  from  common 
life,  but  a  relation  is  brought  out;  in  the  form,  therefore,  in 
which  the  discourse  is  presented,  it  is  not  so  much  a  parable  as 
an  allegory,  like  xv.  1,  seq.,*  cf  Strauss,  4th  ed.  i.  p.  680,  and 
Tholuck's  Glaubw.  d.  ev.  Geschichte,  2d  ed.  p.  340.  These 
false  leaders  of  the  people  (this  is  the  main  thought,)  do  not 
approach  the  theocratic  flock  in  the  right  way,  consequently 
they  lead  it  not  aright,  and  it  does  not  commit  itself  to  them. 
— A  reference  to  the  shepherd-life  of  the  East  is  essential  to  an 
understanding  of  the  images  here  used,  cf.  the  learned  descrip- 
tion in  Bochart,  Hierozoicon,  1  B.  i.  chap.  43  and  46.  In  the 
evening  the  flock  was  conducted  to  a  roofless  inclosure,  sur- 
rounded with  a  low  wall  of  stones,  hence  the  "climbeth  up;" 

1  Lucke  contends  that  it  cannot  be  cnlled  an  "allegory,"  but  what  he  siys  does 
not  bear  upon  the  point.  Calvin  had  already  said  on  v.  7:  (on  the  view,  however, 
that  it  is  an  explanation  of  v.  1,) — nisi  addita  fuisset  hasc  expositio,  tota  orntio 
allegorica  esset,  ("  if  this  explanation  had  not  been  appended,  the  entire  discourse 
would  have  been  allegorical.")     Cf.  Unger,  de  parab.  p.  22. 

(255) 


256  Chap.  X.— v.  1-5. 

sometimes  watch  was  kept  at  the  door  by  a  servant  furnished 
with  arms,  the  "porter."  In  the  morning  the  shepherd  comes, 
is  admitted  by  the  "porter,"  and  calls  the  bell-wether;  the 
particular  animals  in  the  flock  had,  and  in  our  own  day  still 
have  their  own  names,  xd  ^ouxoXcxd  kncipcovr^naza,  (the  shepherd- 
cries;)  Longus,  Pastor.  1.  iv.  ed.  Schaef.  p.  133:  r«c  alyai: 
TrpoaeTne  xal  roue  rpdyou^  tAdhazv  dvofxaffvi,  "  He  spoke  to  the 
she-goats,  and  called  the  he-goats  by  name."  Eobbers  often 
scaled  the  low  wall  at  night.  Cf.  for  interpretation,  Wolle,  de 
introitu  in  ovile.  Lips.  1748 ;  Voretzsch,  de  loco  Joa.  x.  1-18, 
Altenb.  1838 ;  especially  Chr.  Fr.  Fritzsche,  in  Fritzsch.  opusc. 
comm.  I. — By  the  "fold,"  abX^j,  is  designated  the  theocracy  of 
Israel,  (Mich.  ii.  12,  Ezek.  xxxiv.  14,)  which  is  identical  essen- 
tially with  the  Christian  Church  which  proceeded  from  it,  (v. 
16.)  The  comparison  of  Israel  with  the  flock,  and  of  God  with 
the  shepherd,  is  a  standing  one  in  the  Old  Testament,  yet  the 
leaders  of  the  people,  princes  and  prophets  also,  have  the  name  of 
*' shepherds"  assigned  to  them,  (Jer.  xxiii.  Ezek.  xxxiv.  Zech. 
X.  2,  Isa.  xl.  11,  Ps.  Ixxx.  2,  Ecclesiastic,  xviii.  13.)  As  points  of 
similitude,  the  following  may  be  adduced :  the  care  of  the  shep- 
herd on  the  one  side,  on  the  other  the  defenselessness  of  a  flock, 
particularly  of  a  flock  of  sheep,  the  close  connection  especially 
of  a  flock  of  sheep,  &c.  As  regards,  first,  the  meaning  of  the 
door,  those  expositors  who  allow  no  turn  in  the  parable  in  v.  9, 
must  here  understand  by  it  Christ  himself,  (Cyrill,  Augustine, 
Calvin,  Beza,  Bengel,  Kuinol.)  Will  the  connection  allow  it 
to  be  apprehended  in  this  way?  With  reference  to  the  fact 
that  the  Pharisees  had  tried  to  hinder  from  believing  in  Christ, 
him  that  was  born  blind,  Christ  might  say :  "  Only  those  are 
genuine  shepherds  of  the  people,  who  attaching  themselves  to 
me,  work  in  the  theocracy,"  (Beza.)  Independently,  however, 
of  other  considerations,  the  fact  that  the  comparison  in  v.  14- 
16,  and  in  27,  28,  in  v.  9-11,  also,  proceeds  on  the  idea  that 
Christ  already,  v.  2-4,  has  contrasted,  if  not  exclusively  yet 
preeminently,  himself  with  the  "thief,"  this  fact  raises  the  ques- 
tion, what  can  be  meant  by  Ms  entering  in  by  the  door  ?  The 
idea  of  the  d^upa,  "  door,"  would  then  have  to  be  extended  as  far 
at  least  as  has  been  done  by  Lampe,  according  to  whose  exposi- 
tion Christ  designates  himself,  v.  7,  9,  as  the  door,  inasmuch  as 


Qualification  of  the  true  Leader  of  the  People.  257 

he  confers  the  true  righteousness  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  and 
6  £caepy(\usvo::  dca  r^c  i^Opat;,  "he  that  entcreth  in  hy  the  door" 
is  that  leader  of  the  people  who  is  previously/  prepared  hy  this 
righteousness.  But  this  conception  of  the  righteousness  to  be 
obtained  through  Christ  pertains  to  the  definite  dogmatic  con- 
nection of  the  Epistles  of  Paul,  and  cannot  be  introduced  here. 
Mready,  therefore,  Chrysostom  and  Theophylact  Jiere  under- 
stood by  the  door  the  Holy  Scriptures,  inasmuch  as  the  genuine 
shepherd  must  be  acquainted  with  them ;  Theodorus  of  Ilerac- 
lea,  inasmuch  as  Christ  is  prophecied  of  in  them ;  but  Maldo- 
natus  and  Crell  first  hit  the  true  sense.  The  question  is  not 
what  does  the  "door,"  ^upa,  taken  by  itself  mean,  but  what  is 
meant  by  the  entering  in  through  the  door  and  the  not  entering 
in  by  it,  and  these  can  only  be,  on  the  one  hand,  the  regular 
divinely  ordained  avenue,  that  is,  the  divine  calling,  (Maldon- 
atus :  divina  auctoritas,)  and  on  the  other,  a  presumptuous  intru- 
sion, (Jer.  xxiii.  21.)  He,  consequently,  who  though  uncalled, 
undertakes  to  lead  the  flock  of  God,  comes  to  it  not  as  a 
leader,  but  (impelled  by  self-interest,)  as  a  thief  and  robber,  who 
turns  ofi^  the  stream  of  true  life  from  the  Church  and  causes  its 
spiritual  death,  (v.  10,  Ezek.  iii.  18,  xxxiv.  8 ;)  he,  on  the  other 
hand,  who  called  of  God,  undertakes  its  guidance,  proves  him- 
self a  shepherd  of  the  sheep. 

Y.  3-5.  "When  the  true  shepherd  comes  in  the  morning,  the 
door  is  opened  to  him,  the  sheep  recognize  his  voice,  he  calls 
each  of  them  by  its  name,  leads  them  out  to  pasture,  goes  be- 
fore them  as  a  guide,  and  they  readily  follow  him.  In  explain- 
ing TO.  td:a,  it  is  not  necessary,  with  Fritzsche  and  Liicke,  to  sup- 
pose a  reference  to  the  fact,  that  different  flocks  are  sheltered  in 
the  same  drove,  rather  the  ^loca,  v.  12,  and  i-/^co,  v.  16,  imply  that 
the  idea  of  proprietorship  is  to  be  made  prominent ;  his  own 
sheep  he  knoweth  by  name,  (v.  14 ;)  the  knowing  by  name 
implies  the  most  intimate  acquaintance,  cf.  Isa.  xliii.  1.  From 
what  follows,  it  is  very  clear  that  the  Redeemer  in  this  descrip- 
tion of  the  shepherd,  had  in  his  eye  himself,  as  the  shepherd 
ordained  of  God,  (cf.  on  v.  11 ;)  this  is  deducible  from  the  con- 
nection too,  for  what  Jesus  says  has  respect  to  the  haughtiness 
with  which  the  man  that  had  been  born  blind  encountered  the 

23* 


258  Chap.  X.— v.  6-8. 

leaders  of  the  people,  and  to  the  ready  obedience  with  which 
he  followed  the  Saviour's  commands.  It  is  a  question  whether 
6  ^ufHopoc  dvoiytt,  "  the  porter  openeth,"  serves  without  peculiar 
signification  only  "  to  represent  the  regular  manner  of  theo- 
cratic fellowship,"  (Grotius,  Liicke,)  or  whether  it  has  a  special 
signification.  If  we  have  regard  to  the  expression  often  recur- 
ring in  John,  Trav,  6  dldoial  fxoc  6  nari^p,  Ttpb^  ipik  ^^sc,  "  all  that  the 
Father  giv^eth  me  shall  come  to  me,"  (vi.  36,  x.  29,)  we  might 
understand  by  "the  porter,"  Grod,  (Maldonatus,  Bengel;)  that 
the  porter  is  a  subordinate  person,  argues  nothing  against  this 
view,  for  the  master  of  the  fold  could  not  be  mentioned,  as 
this  was  the  shepherd  himself,  we  must  therefore  suppose  the 
allusion  to  be  made  exclusively  to  the  circumstance  of  the 
opening.  The  dxousiv  is  to  be  regarded  as  preceding  the  lead- 
ing forth,  the  ol'daa:  ttjv  cpcov/jv  takes  place  on  the  way  to  the 
pasture,  and  during  the  pasturing ;  on  the  spiritual  tenor  of  the 
expression,  see  v.  14.  Instead  of  ra  tota  Tzpo^ara,  Lachman, 
following  Cod.  B  D  L,  Copt,  and  some  others,  reads  rd  idea 
Ttdvza,  and  it  certainly  looks  as  though  Ttpo^aza  had  been  added 
by  a  transcriber,  by  way  of  explanation,  (Fritzsche.) — The 
"stranger,"  dXkdrpio^,  in  v.  5,  is  not  designed  to  take  up 
again  the  idea  of  the  "  thief,"  xUTrrrjC,  in  v.  1,  nor  is  it  taken 
up  again  by  the  "hireling,"  juia&io-o!;,  in  v.  12,  it  only  serves  to 
characterize  the  sheep,  (Liicke,)  and  the  ipso^ourai  (will  flee,) 
refers  to  the  conduct  toward  the  leaders  of  the  people,  on  the 
part  of  the  man  that  was  born  blind. 

V.  6.  The  word  Tiapotpia  in  Greek  usage,  "  proverb,"  and  as 
proverbs  are  usually  figurative,  also  means  figurative  discourse ; 
Basil,  horn,  in  prov.  Sal.  init.;  Tiapd  de  irjpiv  Tzapoifiia  iazi  X^oyot: 
wcpeXepo^  pzT  kzcxpuipeco^  fisvpca^  ixdsdopivo^y  "  But  by  a  pro- 
verb we  mean  a  useful  expression,  in  terms  of  moderate  ob- 
scurity," cf.  in  John  ch.  xvi.  25,  29.  Stsfo,  and  in  Arabic,  JJU 
signifies  proverb  as  well  as  comparison,  as  also  on  the  other 
hand,  Ttapa^o^,  Luke,  iv.  23,  means  proverb.  John  then 
comprehends  under  the  expression,  any  figurative  discourse, 
whether  the  parable  proper  or  the  allegory.  The  "understanding 
not,"  does  not  so  much  exclude  everj'  degree  of  comprehension, 
as  a  proper,  thorough  understanding. 


Further  unfoldixc;  of  the  Parabolic  Di.'^course.    259 

Further  unfolding  of  the  Parabolic  Discourse. — v.  7-18. 

V.  7,  8.  We  may  suppose  a  pause  in  the  discourse  at  this 
point,  during  whicli  the  Pharisees  were  talking  with  one 
another  about  the  meaning  of  the  "door,"  and  as  Jesus  is 
wont  in  John,  to  augment  the  strength  of  his  declarations,  and 
as  this  augmentation  is  connected  with  the  very  expressions 
which  give  offense,  (vi.  5Q,  viii.  57,)  thus,  in  this  place,  the 
thought  previously  expressed  is  augmented  by  Christ's  affirm- 
ation of  something  yet  higher  in  regard  to  himself,  when  he 
designates  himself  as  the  door.  As  those  expositors,  who  do 
not  allow  a  turn  in  the  parable,  induced  by  this  expression, 
explained  &'jpa  in  v.  1  in  accordance  with  the  present  passage, 
so  we  might  allow  the  foregoing  parable  to  have  its  influence 
on  the  interpretation  of  verses  7  and  9 ;  the  reference  to  the 
leaders  and  teachers  would  have  to  be  retained,  and  the  gen- 
itive zcou  TTpo^dziov  accordingly  explained,  "  the  door  to  the 
sheep,"  Luther,  Erasmus,  Bengel,  Meyer;  but  already  in  v.  9, 
and  yet  more  unmistakably  from  v.  11  on,  the  reference  of 
Christ,  not  to  the  shepherd,  but  to  the  flock,  is  prominent,  and 
in  this  point  of  view  we  conceive  that  there  is  a  turn  in  the 
similitude,  and  interpret  with  Beza:  Ostium,  quo  ingressus  in 
caulam  patet  ovibus,  (the  door,  by  which  the  sheep  enter  the 
fold.) — V.  8,  clear  as  the  words  are  in  themselves,  appears  to  us 
one  of  the  most  difficult  sentences  in  the  ITew  Testament.  As 
regards  the  genuine  reading,  it  is  true  that  Cod  D  omits  TzavTS^, 
Cod  E  M  G  S  and  some  others  omit  Tvpo  i/xou,  which  latter  Ben- 
gel  and  Matthpei  have  also  rejected;  but  the  presumption  is  too 
obvious,  that  those  words  have  been  omitted,  because  the  Ma- 
nicheans  relied  upon  this  passage  in  arguing  against  the  divine 
legation  of  the  prophets  under  the  Old  Testament;  besides 
this,  the  omission  only  makes  the  sentence  more  obscure,  leav- 
ing the  existing  difficulty  in  its  interpretation  precisely  the 
same.  According  to  the  simple  meaning  of  the  words,  Christ 
here  declares  all  the  leaders  of  the  people  who  had  appeared 
before  him,  to  have  been  uncalled,  the  ministers  of  selfishness, 
(Matt,  xxiii.  13.)  The  remark,  to  be  sure,  may,  without  vio- 
lence,  be  restricted  to  the   cotemporaries   of  Jesus,  and  the 


260  Chap.  X.  — v.  7-10. 

present  eiai  may  be  appealed  to,  to  sustain  such  a  view,  although 
the  present  allows  of  being  taken  thus :  "  all  who  ever  appear- 
ed are,  &c."  But  the  ndvzec:,  strengthened  yet  further  by  oaoij 
would  still  express  this  imputation  with  an  unaccountable  gen- 
erality, as  there  were  also  among  these  leaders  of  the  people 
such  men  as  Nicodemus  and  Gamaliel ;  it  would  be  a  matter 
of  surprise,  too,  that  our  Lord  should  give  a  prominence  to 
their  havino;  come  before  him.  It  is  difficult  under  these  cir- 
cumstances  to  see  no  more  in  the  words  than  the  meaning  that, 
"  he,  Jesus,  was  the  first  of  his  time,  who  felt  a  genuine  solici- 
tude for  the  people,"  (thus  Ebrard,  Matt.  ix.  36,)  and  we  might 
almost  feel  tempted  to  limit  it,  by  supposing  that  epytad^m,  ac- 
cording to  Jer.  xxiii.  21,  is  to  be  understood  of  an  appearing  on 
their  own  authority,  as  Clemens  Alexandrinus,  Stromata,  i.  p. 
311,  Augustine,  c.  Faust,  1.  16,  c.  12,  Jerome,  in  c.  7  Hos.,  Eu- 
thymius  and  Tarnov  take  it ;  but  that  secondary  notion  does  not 
lie  in  the  mere  Ipyta&at.  To  this  is  added  the  difficulty  that 
we  find  no  strong  antithesis  to  v.  7,  which,  however,  could  exist 
only  in  case  Christ  had  there  designated  himself  as  the  shepherd. 
As  he  calls  himself  the  door,  we  anticipate  here  the  idea:  "all 
those  who  have  not  acknowledged  me  as  the  '  door.'  "  Those 
too  have  attempted  to  reach  this  idea,  who,  with  Augustine  (tr. 
45,  in  Joan,)  and  Camerarius,  interpret  -Jipo  by  prseter,  me  neg- 
lecto,  (Avithout  me,  neglecting  me,)  or  with  Eisner,  Baier,  (in 
thes.  nov.  phil-theol,  in  the  learned  dissertat  in  T.  ii.  p.  523,) 
and  Kling,  take  lpyj.a&al  izpo  in  the  sense,  "pass  me  by,  neg- 
lect me."  But  in  place  of  this,  the  language  would  demand 
Tzap  ipk  Tzapr^/.&oi^.  Those  who,  like  Chrysostom,  Beza,  Calvin, 
Grotius,  understand  the  expression  of  false  Messiahs,  have 
obtained  in  a  difierent  way  a  limitation,  and,  as  it  seems,  a 
more  precise  reference  to  v.  7.  And  in  this  it  is  not  necessarj-, 
with  Zwingle,  (he  says,  that  in  German  also,  vor  and  fiir,  before 
and  for,  are  interchanged,)  Luther,  (AYalch,  xi.  p.  1520,)  Me- 
lancthon,  Lampe  and  Wolf,  to  take  Tipo  in  the  sense  "  instead 
of,"  (this  only  occurs  when  it  is  equivalent  to  UTtep,  in  commo- 
dum,  for  the  advantage  of,)  but  as  Christ  in  calling  himself  the 
door  of  the  sheep,  designates  himself  indirectly  as  the  Messiah, 
he  might  in  this  connection  continue :  "  Those  who  have  ap- 
peared before  me  in  my  character."    According  to  Bucer,  we 


Further  unfolding  of  tue  Parabolic  Discourse.    261 

already  find  even  iu  v.  12,  a  reference  to  false  teacliers  and 
pseudo-Messiahs;  according  to  Maldonatus,  only  the  latter. 
But  in  this  way  of  apprehending  it,  the  expositor  once  more 
has  history  against  him,  which  speaks  of  false  Messiahs  only 
after  Christ.  Even  if  we  admit  that  Josephus  has  passed  over 
Bome  such  appearances  in  silence,  and  if  we  could  venture  with 
Bauer  to  use  the  expression  of  Christ,  Matt.  xxiv.  24,  as  proof 
that  the  appearing  of  false  Messiahs  was  at  that  time  a  familiar 
idea,  still  the  objection  could  not  be  relieved,  that  the  expres- 
sion n-dvrec  oaot  points  to  a  greater  historical  importance  of 
such  false  teachers.  We  confess,  therefore,  that  we  cannot 
relieve  in  any  way  which  is  entirely  satisfactory,  the  difficulty 
raised  by  the  expression.^ —  To.  Tzpb^axa  is,  indeed,  indefinite,  so 
that  it  might  be  taken  iu  a  universal  way,  in  which  case  it 
would  lose  its  historic  accuracy,  but  v.  3,  in  which  we  first  have 
the  indefinite  za  npb^aza^  afterward  makes  it  specific  by  'lota. 
V.  9,  10.  The  thought  is  again  made  emphatic,  that  only 
through  the  mediation  of  Christ  can  a  man  belong  in  a  saving 
way  to  the  theocracy.  K  it  has  been  held  that  the  reference  in 
V.  7  is  to  the  leaders  of  the  people,  it  should  not  be  abandoned 
here,  and  Liicke,  even  in  the  3d  edition,  retains  it  to  the 
exclusion  of  any  other;  others,  who  cannot  deny  that  the  slieeip 
are  designated  as  the  subject,  seek  to  help  themselves  by  the 
remark,  that  the  shepherd  of  Christ's  flock  must  necessarily  at 
the  same  time  be  a  member  of  the  flock.  It  appears  to 
me  that  if  there  be  a  turn  acknowledged  in  the  parabolic  dis- 
course with  reference  to  the  "door"  in  v.  7,  we  ought  to  feel 
the  less  reluctant  to  acknowledo;e  the  same  thing  in  ree-ard  to 
those  that  enter  in.  The  leading  idea  is  expressed  by  the  first 
words,  "shall  be  saved  by  me,"  ol  ifioo  ato&qazzai  ;  within  this 
"fold,"  ahlq^  is  the  source  of  the  "salvation,"  ocoxqpia^  this  fold 
is  here,  however,  already  regarded  in  the  New  Testament  light, 
(see  on  v.  16  and  v.  1.)  With  a  backward  glance  at  v.  3,  4,  the 
benefit  is  further  depicted  in  figurative  form  as  the  enjoyment  of 
pasture,  "  he  shall  go  in  and  out;"  tlakpytad^m  and  Iqep'/^ta&cu, 
according  to  Fritzsche,  taken  in  its  proper  sense,  expresses  the 
two  features :  Admittetur  in  locum  munitum,  et  aperientur  ei 

1  The  interpretfttioii  of  Olshauscn  (that  of  Placseus  is  like  it,)  we  pass  over,  as  it 
has  too  much  against  it. 


262  Chap.  X.— v.  11-16. 

fores  eo  eventu,  ut  paseatur,  (lie  shall  have  entrance  given  to 
him  into  a  secure  place,  and  the  doors  shall  be  opened  to  him 
that  he  may  be  fed ;)  in  our  judgment  the  expression  is  chosen, 
that  by  it  the  etaiX&rj  may  be  amplified,  cf  Numbers  xxvii.  17, 
where  undoubtedly  the  shej^herd  is  spoken  of;  whether  with 
the  trope  there  be  at  the  same  time  a  distinct  thought  of  the 
Hebrew  phraseology  in  which  "going  in  and  out"  designates 
"traffic  and  trade,"  (Deuter.  xxviii.  6,  Ps.  cxxi.  8,)  may  be 
questioned.  With  v.  10,  the  comparison  of  the  shepherd  in- 
stead of  that  of  the  door  again  comes  in,  and  in  fact,  from  the 
words,  "I  am  come,"  iyco  rjX&ov,  on  to  v.  15,  we  regard  the  dis- 
course as  an  amplification  of  what  has  been  said,  v.  9,  of  the 
welfare  of  the  sheep.  He  who  appears  uncalled  robs  the  sheep 
of  their  possession  and  of  life  itself,  on  the  contrary,  Christ 
gives  them  life  and  all  fullness. 

V.  11-13.  The  predicate  which  the  Saviour  had  already 
appropriated,  v.  2,  now  comes  out  with  complete  definiteness. 
Luther  inaccurately  translates  :  "  a  shepherd,"  the  article  rather 
proves  that  our  Lord  expressed  ideally  what  pertains  to  the 
true  shepherd;  dXr^&cuo:;  might,  without  an  essential  change 
of  the  meaning,  be  substituted  for  6  xaAoc,  (the  true,  cf  xaXS^ 
GrpazccoTTj^,  2  Tim.  ii.  3.)  The  Messiah  is  indeed  predicted  of 
Ezek.  xxxvii.  24,  as  the  true  shepherd,  nevertheless  it  cannot 
be  affirmed  that  the  article  refers  to  one  already  known  from 
the  prophecies,  (Maldouatus,  Bengel;)  rather  does  our  Lord 
justify  the  application  of  the  predicate  to  himself  by  a  refer- 
ence to  his  consummate  love  for  the  sheep.  It  is  true,  as 
Fritzsche  has  endeavored  to  show,  that  the  conception  of  the 
shepherd  is  not  exhausted  by  that  of  teacher,  especially  if  we 
consider  that  according  to  v.  12  the  sheep  belong  to  him,  he 
has  purchased  them  as  his  possession  with  his  own  blood, 
(Heb.  xiii.  20,  Acts  xx.  28.)  Alone  by  what  Christ  has  done 
and  suftered  for  those  that  are  his,  are  they  trul}'  united  with 
him.  The  expression  ttjv  (pfJXrjv  zcdevat  urrsp  has  no  exact  corres- 
pondent analogy  either  in  Greek  or  Hebrew,  for  in  the  formula 
f]D3  1^?^  D-'iy,  the  meaning  of  ow  is  "  to  take,"  but  Homer  uses 
^0')(rju  TTapazc&ead^ai,  (to  hazard  life,)  Polybius,  (po^irju  xaravi^epai, 
(to  lay  down  life.)  TTrip  does  not  in  itself  express  the  idea  of 
substitution,  (xi.  50,)  yet  in  the  thing  a  correlation  has  place, 


Further  unfolding  of  the  Parabolic  Discourse.    263 

for  he  who  dies  for  another  saves  him  from  dying.  It  is 
worthy  of  note  what  importance  is  attached  in  v.  12,  13,  to  the 
fact,  that  ah'cady  per  se,  and  therefore  apart  from  their  acqui- 
sition by  that  love  which  endured  every  sacrifice,  the  sheep 
belong  to  Christ,  cf  'i-j^to,  v.  16.  A  speculative  apprehension 
of  the  doctrine  of  the  Logos  and  of  redemption,  causes  a 
recognition  of  that  profound  truth  which  lies  at  the  base  of  this 
expression,  (sec  above,  p.  70.)  The  mention  of  the  hireling 
hardly  involves  an  allusion  to  the  Pharisees,  it  serves  merely 
by  way  of  contrast  to  give  prominence  to  the  idea  of  the  genu- 
ine shepherd.  The  adrd  appears  strange,  if  xac  6  hjxoi:  dfirtd^ee 
aura  x.  axoprci^ze  ra  Tzpb^ara  be  the  genuine  reading.  Sentences 
like  that  in  Xenophon,  Cyrop.  1,  4,  2,  xa.\  yap  da&tvrj(javTO(; 
auT ou  o'jdi~oT£  dTziXcTze  zbv  rcdTTTrov ,  ("  Cyrus,  when  his  grand- 
father fell  ill,  never  quitted  him,")  cannot  be  compared,  since 
here,  only  a  participial  period  is  thrown  in,  (Fritzsche,  and  also 
Fr.  A.  Fritzsche,  conjectanea  in  Nov.  Test.  p.  12.)  We  may, 
perhaps,  say  with  Fritzsche,  that  o-brd  designates  a  part  of  the 
sheep,  the  part  killed,  and  rd  zpo^^aza,  the  whole  flock,  which  is 
scattered.  The  hireling  who  serves  merely  for  wages,  and 
whose  interest  does  not  coincide  with  that  of  the  flock,  has 
nothing  to  gain  by  offering  himself  for  them. 

V.  14,  15.  In  virtue  of  the  fact  that  the  flock  is  the  posses- 
sion of  the  good  shepherd,  he  stands  also  in  a  closer  relation 
to  it  than  the  hireling  can ;  there  exists  a  reciprocal  sympathy 
as  between  the  Father  and  the  Son,  in  which  expression,  as  in 
chap.  xvii.  21,  seq.  the  immanence  of  the  Father  in  the  Son, 
and  of  the  Father  and  the  Son,  in  the  Church,  is  presupposed, 
(xiv.  23.)  On  the  part  of  the  Son,  this  sympathy  of  love  dis- 
plays itself  especially  in  his  offering  up  of  himself. 

V.  16.  Here,  as  in  ch.  xvii.  20,  the  glance  at  the  little  host 
immediately  about  him,  expands  itself  into  a  prospect  of  gene- 
rations to  come.  All  the  Evangelists  corroborate  the  fact,  that 
the  Redeemer,  who  during  his  life  never  passed  the  borders  of 
Israel,  and  confined  his  Disciples  to  the  same  limits,  (Matt.  x. 
5,)  in  the  most  distinct  manner  prophesied  the  calling  of  the 
Gentiles,  (Matt.  xxi.  43.)  As  in  the  prophecies,  so  here  too, 
the   reception  of  the  Gentiles  into  the   kingdom  of  God  is 


264  Chap.  X.  — v.  17-28. 

represented  as  a  reception  into  the  Old  Testament  theocracy, 
just  as  Paul  speaks  of  it,  (Rom.  xi.  17,  cf.  Ileb.  iii.  5,  6.) 
The  propiatory  death  is  the  bond  of  unity  between  the  two 
kinds,  (John  xi.  52,  xii.  24,  25,  Eph.  ii.  14-18.)  Many  of  the 
Gentiles  also,  are  "children  of  God,"  (xi.  52,)  in  virtue  of  that 
internal  sympathy  with  Christ,  by  which  they  will  be  enabled 
to  know  his  "voice."  The  asyndeton  fi'ta  noifiy/^,  efc  TzoipTJVy  is 
also  used  in  the  classics,  when  two  ideas  are  closely  connected, 
as  dvd/jcijv,  yuvaixcou,  Kiister  on  Aristophanes  Ran£e,  v.  156, 
Schafer  on  Longus,  p.  403. 

Y.  17,  18.  The  thought  in  v.  15  is  again  entered  into,  the 
love  of  the  Father  to  the  Son  rests  upon  the  unison  of  will,  viii. 
29,  XV.  10.  "lua  designates  not  the  subjective,  but  the  objective 
design,  the  condition,  see  on  iv.  36,  cf.  ttjv  iurokjv  at  the  close 
of  V.  18.  The  atoning  feature  lies  not  in  the  physical  event, 
but  in  the  spiritual  fact  of  the  death  of  Jesus,  cf.  Rom.  v.  19, 
Heb.  ix.  14.  Does  this  voluntary  dying  present  an  antithesis 
to  all  powers  exterior  to  Christ,  only,  or  also  to  the  tendency  to 
death,  whose  basis  was  in  himself,  in  other  words :  does  he 
mean  to  say  that  he  might  have  remained  untouched  of  deatljj 
as  he  was  untouched  of  sin  ?  See  the  discussion  on  this  ques- 
tion in  Mau,  on  Death,  the  wages  of  sin,  p.  20,  seq.  in  opposi- 
tion to  Krabbe,  cf  also,  Tholuck's  Comment,  on  Heb.  ii.  14. 
The  connection,  however,  as  well  as  the  words  oltz'  i/muToo,  "  of 
myself,"  and  oodec(:,  "  no  man,"  shows  that  here  the  antithesis 
is  confined  to  other  persons,  (cf.  also,  v.  28.)  Liicke  was  led  in 
his  earlier  view  to  a  forced  exposition  of  this  passage,  by  the 
fact,  that  elsewhere  the  resurrection  of  Christ  is  designated  as 
the  work  of  the  Father ;  after  such  expressions  as  v.  30,  there 
is,  however,  no  room  to  doubt  that  the  i^ouma,  "power,"  of  the 
Father  is  also  that  of  the  Son,  though  in  such  a  way,  of  course, 
that  the  Father  is  always  to  be  regarded  as  the  absolute  cause 
in  the  works  of  Christ.  Christ  calls  himself,  xi.  25,  "  the  Res- 
urrection," jj  duaffzaa:^,  and  ascribes  to  himself,  v.  21,  a  partici- 
pation in  the  work  of  raising  the  dead ;  that  nevertheless  as 
regards  his  death  and  resurrection,  as  for  every  other  act,  the 
canon  laid  down,  ch.  v.  19,  is  available,  that  is,  that  the  Father 
is  to  be  regarded  as  the  absolute  cause,  (cf  v.  38,)  is  intimated 


Discourses  at  the  Feast  of  the  Dedication.       265 

by  the  closing  words  of  v.  18.  That  expression,  too,  is  worthy 
of  note  as  a  proof  that  Christ,  according  to  John  also,  prophe- 
sied of  his  resurrection,  (ii.  19.) 

V.  19-21.  Here  also  it  is  plain,  that  John  does  not  delin- 
eate the  opponents  of  Jesus  as  utterly  unsusceptible ;  in  part  his 
words,  in  part  his  works,  have  made  an  impression  upon  some 
of  the  hearers  who  were  Pharisees — it  is  remarkable  that  these, 
as  it  appears,  recognize  no  (beneficent)  demoniacal  miracles. 

Discourses  at  the  Feast  of  the  Dedication  of  the  Temple, 

V.  22-39. 

Ai 

V.  22,  23.  Perhaps  confiding  in  the  division  among  the 
guides  of  the  people,  Jesus  remains  in  the  city  or  in  its  envi- 
rons, (?  see  N'eander,  p.  538,  Trans,  p.  303 ;)  thus,  some  three 
months  later  the  feast  of  the  Dedication  draws  near,  which  was 
annually  celebrated  in  the  month  of  December  for  eight  days, 
in  commemoration  of  the  second  consecration  of  the  temple, 
after  it  had  been  desecrated  by  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  (1 
^accab.  iv.  56,  (59,)  2  Maccab.  i.  18.)  As  it  was  the  rainy 
season,  our  Saviour  did  not  teach  in  the  fore-courts,  in  the  open 
air,  but  in  that  eastern  porch  of  the  fore-court  of  the  Gentiles, 
which  had  continued  to  stand  at  the  destruction  of  Solomon's 
temple  by  the  Babylonians ;  in  the  very  same  place  we  subse- 
quently find  the  Apostles,  Acts  v.  12. 

V.  24,  25.  By  the  "Jews,"  'loudaioc,  we  are  probably  to 
understand  (cf.  also,  v.  26,)  the  Pharisees,  and  particularly 
members  of  the  Sanhedrim ;  we  may  from  this  fact  already 
draw  the  inference,  which  is  sustained  by  the  sequel,  that  im- 
pure motives  alone  prompted  the  question.  Ac'pecp  (and  espe- 
cially iTzalfjssv,  i~af)a:z,)  is  used  in  the  classics  and  Septuagint 
in  the  sense,  "to  raise,  agitate,"  in  Philo  it  is  used  with 
litTiwrjt^dv^  (cf.  Liicke.)     On  epya,  see  v.  36. 

V.  26-28.  The  fact  that  Christ  refers  back  to  the  similitude 
at  the  beginning  of  the  chapter,  although  three  months  had 
intervened,  and  the  persons  addressed  were  perhaps  not  the 
same,  is  used  by  Strauss  as  evidence  that  it  is  here  not  so  much 
the  Saviour  who  speaks  as  the  Evangelist,  wlio  still  had  the 
words  from  the  beginning  of  the  chapter  in  his  memory.     But 

24 


266  Chap.  X.— v.  29-33. 

if  Christ  observed  here  and  there  among  those  present  but  one 
or  two  who  had  heard  the  similitude,  would  it  not  have  been 
proper,  even  after  a  yet  longer  interval,  to  make  reference  to  it? 
Kadct)^  elTTov  6//7v  is  wanting  in  Cod.  B  K  L  M*,  and  some  other 
authorities;  yet  although  it  is  supposable  that  a  glossator  might 
have  introduced  the  reference,  the  omission,  on  the  other  hand, 
may  be  explained  by  the  fact  that  the  words  ou  ydp — indiv  do 
not  occur  just  in  that  form  in  the  earlier  discourse;  there  are 
besides  weighty  authorities  for  the  retention,  (Fritzsche.)  With 
Meyer,  we  divide  by  a  comma  merely,  xa&oj^  eJnov  u/ijuu,  from 
what  precedes,  and  after  u/jicv  insert  a  colon.  For  the  very- 
reason  that  he  had  not  expressly  uttered  the  words  ou  yap — 
i/zftiv  in  a  negative  form,  our  Lord  adduces  the  positive  prop- 
ositions from  which  that  negative  consequence  is  derived. 
References  to  something  prior,  which  are  not  precise,  are  found 
also  in  v.  36,  chap.  xi.  40,  xii.  34,  vi.  36.  The  marks  of  his 
true  sheep  are  partly  subjective,  partly  objective :  1)  They 
understand  his  call ;  2)  Christ  knows  them  by  their  sympathy  ; 
8)  They  direct  themselves  by  his  will ;  4)  He  gives  them  eternal 
life ;  5)  They  never  lose  it ;  6)  No  power  can  snatch  them  away 
from  him.  The  Reformed  Church  (the  Calvinistic,)  bases  on 
V.  28  the  doctrine,  that  the  regenerate  can  never  apostatize. 
Christ  undoubtedly  says,  that  no  power  can  snatch  away  his 
sheep  from  him,  (Romans  viii.  37-39;)  but  he  furnishes  also 
the  marks  of  his  sheep,  and  only  so  far  as  the  stipulations  con- 
tained in  V.  27  and  28  are  fulfilled,  so  far  consequently  as  the 
disciple  of  Christ  continues  with  Christ,  (viii.  31,)  is  he  invin- 
cible. See  Tholuck,  Komm.  zum  Br.  an  d.  Rom.  (4th  ed. 
1842,)  p.  456,  (on  Rom.  viii.  28.) 

V.  29,  30.  Our  Lord,  in  confirmation  of  what  he  has  said, 
refers  to  the  unity  of  his  power  with  that  of  the  Father. 
Stripping  the  thought  of  its  veil  of  imagery,  we  have  the  same 
idea  that  is  presented  in  Rom.  viii.  28,  35.  The  world  is  so 
established  and  will  be  so  ordered,  that  to  him  who  remains 
with  Christ,  all  that  comes  from  without,  though  apparently  an 
obstacle,  will  in  fact  promote  his  welfare.  The  connection 
justifies  what  is  maintained  by  Lampe  and  Bengel,  for  ex- 
ample, that  the  word  "all,"  Ttavvwu,  in  t?ns  place  does  not 
comprehend  the  Son  too,  (it  is  otherwise  in  chap.  xiv.  28,)  it 


Discourses  at  the  Feast  of  the  Dedication.       26T 

onljr  embraces  the  power  inimical  to  the  sheep.  The  thirtieth 
verse  has  been  used  since  the  Niccne  Council  as  the  grand 
proof  text  for  the  metaphysical  unity  of  essence  between  the 
Father  and  Son,  though  it  was  not  so  used  previously.^  Euthy- 
mius,  Calvin,  Grotius,  and  even  the  Socinians,  admit  that  the 
connection  leads  to  the  unity  of  power — they  add :  "  and  of 
will."  Calovius,  Bengel,  and  others  do  not  deny  this,  but  the 
latter  remarks,  as  Chrysostom  had  already  done  :  TJnitas  po- 
tentiffi  adeoque  naturce,  nam  omnipotentia  est  attributum  natu- 
rale.  Per  sumus  refutatur  Sabellius,  per  unum  Arius.  ("Unity 
of  power,  and  therefore  of  nature,  for  omnipotence  is  an  attribute 
of  nature.  The  ^^are"  refutes  Sabellius,  the  ^^07ie"  refutes 
Arius.")  Against  the  validity  of  this  conclusion  the  Socinians 
appeal  to  xvii.  21.  It  is  enough  for  us  to  direct  attention  to 
the  fact  which  has  usually  been  overlooked  in  these  controver- 
sies, that  the  discourse  is  not  of  the  unity  of  the  first  and  of  the 
second  "person,"  uzoazaat^,  of  the  Godhead,  but  of  the  union 
of  God  with  this  particular  human  individual,  hence  we  subse- 
quently have  as  equivalent,  the  formula,  iv  i/ioc  b  Tzazijp  xayoj  iv 
abzu),  "the  Father  is  in  me,  and  I  in  him,"  v.  38;  "in  me  the 
Father  entered  into  human  consciousness,  and  I  have  in  Him 
the  ground  of  my  existence  and  of  my  actions,"  (De  Wette.) 

V.  31-33.  Already,  viii.  59,  the  opponents  of  Christ,  in  order 
to  execute  vengeance  against  the  blasphemy,  which  the  law 
punished  by  stoning,  had  snatched  up  stones  in  a  tumultuous 
manner — stones  brought  there  by  the  building  of  the  temple, 
which  was  not  yet  completed,  may  have  been  lying  about. 
The  reply  of  Jesus  seems  not  without  sarcasm.  On  id$i^a,  cf. 
ii.  18,  xaXa  epya,  either  useful,  beneficent,  (1  Tim.  vi.  18,)  or 
noble,  glorious,  (1  Tim.  iii.  1.)  The  present  Xcdd^ojjzv  as  temp, 
inf.  of  the  action  had  in  view.  De  Wette  thinks  that  accord- 
ing to  the  usual  type  of  John,  the  language  of  the  Jews  is  to 
be  regarded  as  the  result  of  a  misunderstanding,  but  how  ? 
Could  they  not  say  with  justice  of  him  who  ascribed  to  himself 
like  power  with  God,  Tzoctl  aeauzbv  deov,  "he  maketh  himself 
God?" 

*  The  polemic  interest  against  the  Sabellians  led  o.  g.  Novatian  de  trin.  c.  22,  to 
Bay:  "  Unitas  ad  concordiam  et  charitatis  societatem  pertinet,"  the  oneness  relates 
to  hanuouy  and  the  union  of  love. 


268  Chap.  X.— v.  34-36. 

Y.  34-36.  The  reply  of  the  Redeemer  is  a  conclusion  from 
the  less  to  the  greater,  cf.  e.  g.  Matt,  xii,  27.  "In  the  law," 
w/^oc,  that  is  in  the  Old  Testament,  (xii.  34,  xv.  25,)  more  par- 
ticularly in  Ps.  Ixxxii.  6,  the  judges  (and  those  moreover, 
wicked  ones,)  are  addressed  as  "gods,"  d^eoi,  and  "sons  of  the 
highest,"  ulol  uiplazou,  it  cannot,  therefore,  be  absolutely  blas- 
phemy, if  a  man  calls  himself  "son  of  God,"  yfoc  too  ^sov. 
But  we  are  not  to  regard  the  citation  made  by  Christ  as  merely 
an  external  argument  from  the  visage  of  the  language.  Christ 
certainly  presupposes  a  truth  in  this  usage  of  language  in  Scrip- 
ture. We  have  to  inquire,  therefore:  Why  those  judges, 
(according  to  others,  princes,)  legitimately  bear  the  title  of 
"gods,"  ??£0£?  The  answer  depends  upon  the  meaning  at- 
tached to  the  words,  "to  whom  the  word  of  God  came,"  7r/>6c — 
iyeusTo.  According  to  Cyrill,  Luther,  (Walch,  iii.  1163,)  Bucer, 
Calvin,  Lampe,  Grotius,  Olshausen,  v.  Colin,  (Bibl.  Theol.  ii. 
95,)  the  "  word,"  ^o^'oc,  is  either  the  command  of  God  by  which 
they  are  constituted,^  (so  that  Tzpoc  signifies  "with  regard  to,") 
or  it  means  the  word  of  revelation,  by  which  they  were  illu- 
mined. Conceived  in  this  way,  we  have  a  climax  in  the  rela- 
tion  of  God  to  the  Jewish  judges  on  the  one  side,  and  to 
Christ  on  the  other;  the  former  receive  God's  word,  Christ  as 
the  Messiah,  is  the  absolute  revelation  of  God.  But  can  it  be 
shown  that  all  the  particular  judicial  sentences  are  to  be  re- 
garded as  prophetic  decisions,  as  divine  revelation?  Perhaps 
so  in  the  case  of  Moses  himself,  (Ex.  xviii.  15,  19 ;)  but  is  this 
true  also  of  those  judges  whom  he  appointed,  (v.  25,)  and  of 
the  priestly  judges  in  the  central  sanctuary  ?  (Deut.  xvii.  8,  xix. 
17.)  Lampe  even  remarks  that  the  latter  may  have  judged  by 
Urim  and  Thummim.  Olshausen  may  have  been  impelled  by 
feeling  the  difficulty  connected  with  this  point,  to  embrace 
the  prophets  also  under  these  words.  The  same  difficulty  had 
already  led  Crell  to  doubt  the  correctness  of  this  meaning,  and 
to  think  that  "the  word  of  God"  referred  only  to  the  address 
contained  in  the  Psalm,  and  this  view  has  been  followed  by  the 
more  recent  critics.  Christ,  therefore,  presupposes  an  acquaint- 
ance with  the  Psalm,  and  as  those  addressed  in  it  were  judges, 

1  In  Gerhard's  Loci  T.  xiii.  p.  250,  the  expression  is  adduced  as  a  proof  passage 
for  the  diviue  right  of  the  magistracy. 


Discourses  at  the  Feast  op  the  Dedication.        269 

there  is  a  climax  of  official  dignity.  The  judge,  as  does  also 
the  prince,  represents  by  his  plenipotence  the  omnipotent  God;* 
Christ  possessed  a  far  higher  power,  could  consequently  lay 
claim  in  a  far  higher  measure  to  that  predicate,  and  yet  more 
cogent  would  be  this  conclusion,  if  our  Lord  had  in  his  eye,  that 
the  persons  addressed  in  the  Psalm  are  unrighteous  judges.  If 
it  be  the  official  dignity,  on  which  is  based  the  justification  of 
the  predicate  "Son  of  God,"  the  view,  which  discovers  no 
more  in  that  term  than  a  title  of  office,  can  certainly  appeal 
for  confirmation  to  this  passage,  and  already  Camero  remarks 
that  this  had  been  done  by  the  hodierni  Photiniani,  (tlie  Pho- 
tinians  of  the  present  day ;)  but  then,  in  the  first  place,  the  fact 
would  be  overlooked,  that  even  here  the  official  name  must 
refer,  at  least,  on  the  one  side  to  the  essence,  that  it  bases  itself, 
nameW,  upon  the  plenipotence,  and  in  the  second  place,  that 
V.  38  defines  more  particularly  the  meaning  of  "  Son  of  God." 
In  the  words,  "J  said  I  am  the  Son  of  God,"  elTrop,  uVo<;  ^eou 
ecfi:,  there  is  again  an  absence  of  exactness,  as  Christ  had  not 
said  this  explicitly  ;  it  is  an  ingenious  remark  of  Theodore  of 
Mopsuestia,  that  there  is  a  designed  climax  in  the  antithesis 
between  "gods"  and  "Son  of  God,"  and  that,  too,  a  climax 
ftom  the  greater  to  the  less.  The  predicates  with  which,  v.  36, 
the  dignity  of  Messiah  is  designated,  are  certainly  not  distinct- 
ive enough,  as  others  besides  the  Messiah  may  be  sanctified, 
(consecrated,)  and  sent,  (Jer.  i.  5,)  still  it  is  like  vi.  27,  iii.  34, 
(cf.  remarks  on  latter  passage.)  It  is  impossible  to  mistake  the 
affinity  between  this  argument  and  the  character  of  the  reason- 
ing in  the  synoptical  Gospels,  in  which  Christ  often  proceeds 
with  an  indirect  argument,  (Matt.  xii.  27,  xxii.  43.)  The  pro- 
cedure of  Jesus  forms  a  remarkable  contrast  with  the  other 
cases  mentioned  by  John,  in  which  he  only  states  anew  more 
strongly  what  had  given  offense. — The  xai  ou — /J  ypw^  remains 
to  be  considered.     The  subject  of  6?;re  is  6  vo/zoc,  or  -^  Ypa<pT^  ;  the 

1  Cf.  Jehosbaphat's  address  to  the  judges  appointed  by  him,  2  Chron.  six.  5-7. 
Seneca  (de  dementia,  1.  i.  c.  i.)  introduces  Nero  speaking  in  the  following  way: 
electus  sum,  qui  in  terris  Deorum  vice  fungerer;  ego  vitae  necisque  gentibus  arbiter, 
qualem  quisque  sortem  statumque  habeat,  in  manu  mea  positum  est;  ("I  have  been 
chosen  to  perform  in  the  world  the  part  of  the  Gods ;  I  am  arbiter  of  life  and  death 
to  the  nations,  to  me  lias  been  committed  the  decision  of  the  lot  and  condition  of 
every  man.") — According  to  the  current  view,  the  judges,  Exod.  xxi.  G,  xxii.  7,  aro 
called  D'n  7X,  see  on  the  other  hand,  Qesenius,  Thesaurus,  i.  p.  96. 

24* 


270  Chap.  X.  — v.  37-42. 

argument  is  strengthened  by  the  remark,  that  the  Scripture  is 
confessedly,  in  all  its  constituent  parts,  incontestible.  In  this 
very  declaration  of  Christ,  there  would  certainly  be  a  proof  for 
the  most  rigid  doctrine  as  to  the  nature  of  inspiration,  (Storr, 
Lehrbuch  d.  Dogmatik  von  Flatt,  p.  199 ;  trausl.  by  S.  S. 
Schmucker,  D.  D.,  2d  ed.  p.  160,)  did  not,  as  the  Orthodox 
exegesis  admits,  the  entire  demonstration  partake  of  the  char- 
acter of  an  accommodation,  and  an  argumentatio  e  concessis.^ 
V.  37-39.  What  are  the  Jews  to  believe  ?  That  he  is  "  the 
Son  of  God,"  a  conception  whose  purport  is  unfolded  in  v.  38, 
cf.  v.  25.  This  they  were  to  regard  Mm  as  being,  and  to  be- 
lieve therefore  in  his  ivord,  and  in  the  impression  which  it  pro- 
duces, (viii.  43.)  If  they  cannot,  however,  dispense  with  the 
mediation  of  something  which  addresses  the  senses,  his  works 
can  furnish  testimony,  corresponding  to  ch.  xiv.  10,  11.  These 
can  lead  to  an  acknowledgment  that  Christ  works  in  unity 
with  the  Father,  cf.  on  v.  30,  and  ch.  v.  19,  30.  The  stoning 
had  been  arrested  by  this  discourse,  they  now  again  attempt  to 
seize  him,  but  (probably  in  the  same  way  as  viii.  59,)  he  escapes 
from  their  hands. — On  this  division,  v.  23-39,  Weisse  says :  (ii. 
256,)  ""Were  it  not  for  the  reverence  felt  for  a  writing,  which 
we  have  been  accustomed  to  regard  as  most  intimately  con- 
nected with  what  is  most  sacred,  what  reader  could  keep  his 
gravity  during  the  scene  which  he  is  here  expected  to  bring 
before  his  imagination  !"  As  7io  reader  probably  will  be  able 
of  himself  to  answer  wherefore,  he  will  have  to  glean  it  from 
that  author. 

Ministry  in  Per^a. — v.  40-42. 

Y.  40-42.  To  avoid  the  danger  with  which  he  was  threat- 
ened by  this  outbreak,  Jesus  retires  to  the  department  of  Herod 
Antipas,  to  Bethany,  in  fact,  in  the  district  in  which  John  had 
commenced  his  ministry,  and  had  uttered  the  testimony  given, 
ch.  i.  19,  seq.  These,  and  other  declarations  of  John,  lingered 
in  the  memories  of  the  people,  and  there  are  traces  of  a  sus- 

1  Schweizer  1.  c.  p.  47,  seq.  has  in  an  acute  manner  attempted  to  prove  from 
John,  and  especially  from  this  passage,  that  Christ,  in  his  citations  from  the  Old 
Testament,  consciously  proceeded  throughout  on  the  principle  of  accommodation. 


Ministry  in  Per^a.  271 

ceptibility,  which  had  been  aroused  by  them,  for  the  reception 
of  Jesus.  A  very  important  testimony  against  those  who 
would  explain  the  miracles  of  Jesus  as  fables,  springing  from 
the  morbid  love  of  marvels,  is  found  in  the  observation,  that 
the  Baptist,  though  it  might  certainly  be  looked  for  from  him 
as  a  prophet,  performed  no  miracle. — How  long  Jesus  remained 
here,  depends  on  the  time  we  allow  for  his  staying  in  Ephraim, 
xi.  54,  from  whence  he  journeyed  to  the  Passover.  His  op- 
erations were  interrupted  by  the  message  from  the  family  of 
Lazarus. 


CHAPTER   XI. 


The  Kaising  of  Lazarus. — v.  1-46. 

The  great  vividness  of  delineation,  the  genuine  feeling,  and 
the  simplicity  of  this  narrative  of  a  restoration  from  death,  fur- 
nish the  probable  solution  of  the  fact,  that  such  importance 
has  always  been  attached  to  this  miracle ;  at  the  very  time  of 
its  occurrence  its  results  were  of  the  most  important  character, 
(xii.  9-11,  17,  18.)  Bayle  (Diet,  article  Spinoza,  Trans.  V. 
216,)  says  of  Spinoza:  On  m'a  assure,  qu'il  disoit  k  ses  amis, 
que  s'il  eut  pu  se  persuader  la  resurrection  de  Lazare,  il  auroit 
brise  en  pieces  tout  son  systeme,  il  auroit  embrasse  sans  repug- 
nance la  foi  ordinaire  des  Chretiens,  ("I  have  been  assured  that 
he  said  to  his  friends,  that  if  he  could  be  convinced  of  the 
reality  of  the  resurrection  of  Lazarus,  he  would  dash  to  pieces 
his  entire  system,  and  would  embrace  without  reluctance  the 
ordinary  faith  of  Christians.")  And  wherefore  was  it  that  the 
Jewish  philosopher  believed  not  this  narrative  ?  When  Strauss, 
even  in  the  3d  ed.  ii.  p.  184,  in  the  preparation  of  which,  never- 
theless, he  had  stipulated  for  a  truce  in  regard  to  John,  declares 
that  he  regards  the  narrative  of  this  miracle  as  that  ^^  which 
has  the  greatest  internal  improhahility,  and  the  least  external 
confirmation,''  we  can  look  upon  his  expression  only  as  a  coun- 
ter-trump called  forth  by  the  strong  trump  of  the  defenders, 
but  resting  on  no  solid  reason,  as  the  sequel  will  show.  If  the 
authenticity  of  the  Gospel  be  established,  it  is  impossible  to 
refuse  an  acknowledgment  of  the  miracle,  except  by  an  arbitrary 
treatment  of  the  text.  The  arbitrariness  with  which  a  Gfrorer 
regards  the  history  of  this  resuscitation,  as  identical  with  that 
of  the  young  man  at  Nain,  a  painting  filled  out  from  the  fancy 
of  John,  whose  mind  was  enfeebled  by  age — the  arbitrariness 

(272) 


The  Raising  of  Lazarus.  273 

with  which  "Wcisse  maintains  that  it  is  a  mere  transmutation 
of  a  sentence  of  Jesus  into  a  liistory — this  arbitrariness  can  only 
be  paralleled  by  the  willful  unbelief  of  those  Pharisees  who 
saw  what  was  done,  yet  did  not  believe.  A  milder  judgment 
is  due  to  the  shift  resorted  to  by  Ilase,  Leben  Jesu,  §  99,  and 
Schweizer,  1.  c.  p.  153,  seq.  who  think  the  difficulty  can  be 
escaped  by  adopting  the  supposition  that  the  faith  of  Christ  an- 
ticipated that  the  death  would  prove  only  an  apparent  one ;  that 
is  to  sa}",  the  reality  of  the  death  of  Lazarus  cannot  of  course 
be  established  from  v.  39  so  as  to  force  conviction.  But  then 
just  so  much  the  more  cogently  in  consequence  of  the  judicial 
examination  does  the  healing  of  the  man  that  was  born  blind, 
chap.  9,  bear  with  it  an  apologetic  force,  which  would  indeed 
extend  over  this  particular  case  also,  for  if  a  single  act  of  this 
sort  on  the  part  of  Jesus  is  conceded,  it  avails  nothing  to  keep 
open  an  effiigium,  a  way  of  escape  in  others.  "Who,  more- 
over, can  maintain  in  the  face  of  a  sentence  like  that  in  v.  25, 
the  hypothesis  of  an  apparent  death  ?  This  hypothesis  of  an 
apparent  death,  as  is  well  known,  was  already  at  an  earlier 
period  carried  out  as  well  as  it  could  bear  it,  especially  by 
Paulus  and  by  Gabler,  (though  under  the  presumption  that 
John  had  not  been  perfectly  faithful  in  his  report,)  Journal,  f. 
auserl.  theol.  Litt.  B.  3,  St.  2,  and  on  the  other  hand  has  been 
confuted  by  Flatt,  in  the  Magazin  f.  Dogm.  u.  Mor.  St.  14,  p. 
91,  and  by  Heubner,  miraculorum  ab  Evaugelistis  narratorum 
interpretatio  grammatico-historica,  Viteb.  1807,  as  also  by 
Strauss. 

V.  1-3.  It  is  worthy  of  note  at  the  very  beginning,  that  the 
Evangelist  presumes  his  readers  to  be  acquainted  with  this 
family,  he  subsequently,  indeed,  designates  Mary  more  particu- 
larly, (he  has  also  placed  her  name  first,)  yet  so  as  to  show  that 
he  supposes  her  work  of  love  to  which  he  alludes,  already 
known.  By  the  words  "  whom  thou  lovest,"  8v  (pcXilq^  Lazarus 
is  designated  as  the  intimate  friend  of  Jesus.  ^Anb  and  ix  do 
not  difter  in  meaning.  The  close  relation  of  friendship  to  the 
family  is  also  deducible  from  the  fact,  that  in  their  emergency 
they  send  at  once  for  Jesus,  whom,  as  is  obvious,  they  already 
know  as  one  who  wrought  miracles,  (v.  22.) 

V.  4,  5.     npb^  ^dvazovj  equivalent  to  d^avdai[xoi;,  (1  John  v. 


274  Chap.  XI.  — v.  6-10. 

16,)  like  Eff  ^dvaTou,  2  Kings  xx.  1,  Septuag.  It  is  not  de- 
signed to  exclude  altogether  the  idea  of  dying,  but  (as  the 
words  "but for  the  glory  of  God,"  dW  uTzip  tyj<:  do^y^t;  too  ^eouj 
show,)  the  remaining  in  death,  (Chrysostom,  Augustine,  Cal- 
vin.) The  dying,  however,  was  to  prove  only  the  means  to  the 
glory  of  God,  or  more  strictly,  to  the  glory  of  the  Son  of  God, 
(ix.  3.)  Verse  11  shows  that  Jesus  knew  of  the  death  of 
Lazarus.  The  enigmatical  character  of  the  reply  still  left  to 
the  sisters  a  gleam  of  hope  even  after  the  death  of  their 
brother,  as  v.  22  shows.  The  Disciples  might  see  in  it  an  act 
of  healing  at  a  distance,  (Ebrard.)  The  affectionate  purpose 
which  can  be  traced  in  the  expression,  v.  4,  has  its  spring, 
according  to  the  Evangelist,  in  the  love  which  Jesus  bore  to 
the  whole  family,  ^'deiv,  as  distinguished  from  dyandv,  like 
amare,  designates  the  natural  affection,  while  dyaizdv^  like 
diligere,  marks  the  esteem  which  is  based  upon  reflection;  in 
this  place,  consequently,  when  the  relation  to  the  sisters  is 
spoken  of,  we  have  dyaizdv^  while  (piltt.v  had  previously  been 
used  of  the  brother. 

V.  6-8.  Verses  6  and  7  stand  in  antithesis,  as  after  iTtttra 
a  ^k  corresponding  with  the  nkv  should  follow,  which  is  omitted, 
however,  after  erra,  iTiecTa,  (Schiifer,  Meletemata,  p.  61.)  The 
Evangelist,  therefore,  means  to  say  that  despite  some  delay, 
Jesus  took  his  departure.  "Why  did  he  delay  for  these  two 
days  ?  We  reply :  Had  he  arrived  while  Lazarus  was  yet  sick, 
he  might  have  found  it  impossible,  in  the  bosom  of  the  family 
he  loved,  to  resist  the  entreaty  to  restore  him  to  health ;  his 
special  reason  for  delay  then  was  his  design  of  glorifying  himself 
by  raising  Lazarus,  and  of  revealing  the  "glory  of  God,"  doga 
To~j  &eoi>,  (v.  15,  40,  42,  45,  Chrysostom,  Mich^lis,)  at  the  same 
time  with  the  disciplinary  aim  of  testing  the  faith  of  the  sisters, 
(Heumanu,  Matt.  xv.  26,)  and  thus  perfecting  their  faith — does 
not  his  very  purpose  lie  at  the  root  of  the  promises  concealed  in 
verses  23,  25,  26  ?  Strauss,  to  be  sure,  pronounces  it  immoral 
in  Christ  to  let  his  friend  die,  in  order  to  glorify  himself  by  a 
miracle,  but  Ebrard  has  very  justly  replied:  "He,  to  whose 
omnipotence  it  was  just  as  easy  to  raise  a  dead  man  as  to  heal 
a  sick  one,  performed  not  only  7io  less  an  act  of  goodness,  in 
permitting  the  sickness  of  Lazarus  to  run  to  a  fatal  termina- 


The  Raising  of  Lazarus.  275 

tion,  and  then  raising  him,  but  did  in  fact  the  very  same  thing 
with  only  a  change  of  form." — V.  8  shows  that  the  impression 
made  upon  the  minds  of  the  Disciples  by  the  recent  commo- 
(iou  in  Jerusalem,  was  yet  vivid.  Nbu,  as  in  classic  usage,  in  a 
more  extended  sense,  Acts  vii.  52. 

V.  9,  10.  The  answer  is  clothed  in  the  form  of  a  question, 
which  serves  to  make  it  more  impressive.  In  explaining  the 
parabolic  language,  the  question  rises,  whether  the  same  image 
is  pursued  in  v.  10,  or  whether  there  is  a  turn  in  the  thought. 
The  former  is  the  more  simple,  and  with  Melaucthon,  (Liicke, 
also,  3d  ed.,  and  Schweizer,)  we  explain  it  thus  :  Day  and  night, 
tlie  opposition  of  the  period  in  which  business  is  to  be  trans- 
acted and  of  that  in  which  it  cannot  be  done,  consequently 
the  time  for  one's  calling  and  that  not  devoted  to  our  calling. 
The  time  for  our  calling  has  its  determinate  measure — the  day 
in  Palestine  was  divided  into  twelve  hours,  varying  somewhat 
in  length  according  to  the  season  of  the  year,  (see  on  i.  40.) 
During  the  day,  that  is,  during  the  life  spent  in  our  calling,  the 
sun  is  visible,  so  that  we  do  not  stumble,  that  is,  we  incur  no 
dans:er.  Outside  the  calling  there  is  dano-er — the  iv  in  v.  10, 
(iv  auTuj,)  which  is  so  singular,  may  be  translated  by  "  before, 
with,"  (Winer,  p.  168,  1  John  ii.  10,)  yet  it  is  not  impossible 
that  Christ,  or  the  Disciple  who  reports  his  words,  had  given 
to  the  thought  the  turn,  "there  is  no  light  in  himself."^  The 
Saviour,  therefore,  first  of  all,  quiets  them  with  the  thought, 
that  if,  as  in  this  case,  there  be  indisputably  a  divinely  appoint- 
ed day's  work,  the  man  to  whom  it  is  assigned  will  always  be 
protected. — By  many  others,  "  the  day,"  rjfjtipa,  is  regarded  only 
as  the  designation  of  lifetime,  (Zwingle,  Bucer,  Le  Clerc,  Titt- 
mann,  Maldonatus,  Meyer,)  by  which  this  advantage  is  gained, 
that  the  interpretation  of  the  first  half  is  approximated  to  the 
meaniug  of  the  expression  ix.  4 :  "  Even  to  the  closing  hour 
of  the  day  appointed  me,  the  divine  protection  will  not  fail 
me ;"  but  if  the  latter  half  can,  in  this  view,  be  explained  in  no 
other  way  than  either  with  Heumann :  (with  perhaps  an  appeal 
toxii.  35,)  "the  night  of  death  is  coming,  when  my  work  will 

1  Schweizer:  "The  man  who  shuns  the  way  of  God, betakes  himself  to  darkness, 
and  first  falls  into  real  dinger,  because  the  true  light  is  not  in  him  " — "  an  expres- 
^oa  which  forsakes  the  image,  and  belongs  only  to  the  counterpart." 


276  Chap.  XI.  — v.  11-19. 

be  broken  off;"  or  witb  Meyer:  "I  shall  not  fall  until  the 
appointed  period  of  my  death  has  come;"  this  would  be  doing 
violence  to  the  language,  nor  can  the  passage,  xii.  35,  be 
brought  in  with  propriety  here.  In  the  main  point,  De  Wette, 
by  another  way,  coincides  with  our  interpretation  :  "  The  twelve 
hours  of  the  day  are  an  image  of  the  space  in  which  a  morally 
pure  and  prudent  business  has  its  play ;  the  light  of  this  world 
signifies  the  light  of  the  Spirit,  from  which  purity  springs ;  the 
night,  in  part,  want  of  prudence,  partly  impurity ;"  but  the 
taking  of  ^[xepa  in  this  sense,  has  this  against  it,  that  then  the 
limitation  to  the  twelve  hours  does  not  suit,  and  the  exposition 
of  (paj^  TOO  xbajjLou  is  unnatural.  According  to  Chrysostom, 
Lampe,  Neander,  by  the  "day,"  we  are  to  understand  the  time 
of  Christ's  presence,  by  the  "light,"  Christ  himself,  so  that  the 
words  contained  a  comforting  assurance  for  the  Disciples ;  so 
long  as  he  was  present,  no  evil  could  befall  them. 

V.  11,  12.  The  xal  ixzza  rooro  Xiyec  indicates  a  j^ause.  As 
Christ  in  v.  4  spoke  of  Lazarus  as  still  sick,  but  here  speaks 
of  him  as  dead,  it  is  probable  that  in  the  interval  he  had  died ; 
the  acquaintance  of  Christ  with  the  fact  is  obviously  referred 
to  his  supernatural  knowledge.  The  solicitude  of  the  Disciples 
had,  in  v.  9,  been  allayed  by  pointing  out  to  them  that  in  the 
path  of  his  vocation  no  evil  can  befall  a  man  ;  and  now  they 
are  encouraged  yet  more  by  having  their  sympathy  aroused  in 
the  lot  of  Lazarus,  for  which  reason,  too,  he  is  styled  6  (p'do^ 
jy /iftiv,  [our  friend.)  "WTiat  is  the  Saviour's  reason  here,  as  well 
as  in  the  case  of  the  daughter  of  Jairus,  Luke  viii.  52,  for 
designating  death  as  sleep  ?  As  it  was  his  purpose  speedily  to 
call  back  his  friend  to  life,  it  was  a  natural  and  at  the  same 
time  a  more  tender  expression,  which  lends  no  aid  to  the  mod- 
ern imputation,  that  "  the  Christ  whom  John  paints  is  osten- 
tatious in  his  miracles."  The  Disciples  would  still  more  readily 
think  of  a  deep  sleep  superinducing  a  crisis  in  the  disease,  if 
they  had  regarded  what  was  uttered  in  v.  4  as  an  intimation  of 
Christ's  intention  to  heal  him  at  a  distance. 

V.  13-15.  The  language  of  tender  indirectness  is  now 
exchanged  for  an  explicit  declaration,  and  our  Saviour's  pur- 
pose in  permitting  the  sickness  to  go  on  to  death  is  expressed 
in  direct  terms,  to  wit :  the  strengthening  of  their  faith — for  we 


The  Raising  of  Lazarus.  277 

are  here  to  understand  TTtazeuscv,  of  a  more  exalted  measure  of 
faith,  see  on  ii.  11. 

V.  16.  Siofxa-,  equiv.  to  oUn,  "twin."  John  in  but  three 
instances  furnishes  us  with  traits  of  this  Disciple,  namely,  here 
and  in  xiv.  5,  and  in  xx.  24,  seq.;  but  they  arc  in  such  harmony 
as  to  furnisli  a  picture  of  character.  Intellectual  reflection  pre- 
dominates in  this  Disciple,  immcdiatcness  of  self-surrender  and 
of  trust  was  in  defect ;  here,  consequently,  he  is  unable  to  lift 
himself  up  to  Christ's  word,  he  gives  proof,  indeed,  of  some 
devotion,  as  for  love  of  him  he  will  not  shrink  from  death,  but 
he  shows  faint-heartedness  enough  to  doubt  whether  their  lives 
will  be  saved. 

V.  17-19.  Jesus  does  not  enter  the  village,  he  waits  until 
Martha  comes,  in  fact,  has  Mary  also  to  come  out  to  him,  (v. 
28,  30.)  Why  was  this?  Was  it  that  he  desired  to  avoid  dis- 
play ?  According  to  the  ordinary  view,  it  was  simply  because 
of  the  fact  that  the  place  of  sepulture  was  outside  of  the 
village,  and  this  view  is  favored  by  v.  31. — Since  Chrysostom, 
the  four  days  have  been  computed  thus :  On  the  day  on  which 
the  messenger  started  Lazarus  died,  and  he  was  buried  on  the 
same  day,  (for  proof  that  this  w^as  usual,  see  Acts  v.  6,  10,  and 
Jahn,  Archiiol,  i.  2,  p.  427.)  Jesus  still  remained  two  days  in 
Pertea,  one  day  was  needed  for  the  journc}'  of  from  twenty- 
three  to  twenty-nine  miles  from  Pera^a  to  Bethany,  thus  Jesus 
would  arrive  on  the  fourth  evening — but  could  that  which 
folloAvs  occur  then  on  the  same  evening  ?  According  to  our 
view,  (expressed  on  v.  11,)  Lazarus  was  still  alive  on  the  day  on 
which  the  messenger  arrived ;  the  fact,  moreover,  has  been  lost 
sight  of,  that  according  to  the  rsra^oraToc,  "  the  fourth,"  v.  39, 
Lazarus  at  the  time  of  the  arrival  of  Jesus  could  have  lain  in 
the  grave  three  days  only,  and  here  in  v.  17  the  fourth  day,  yet 
incomplete,  is  counted  with  them.  We  may  regard  it  as  cer- 
tain, that  Jesus  did  not  make  the  whole  journey  in  one  day, 
for  he  went  to  the  sepulchre  the  day  he  arrived,  as  a  compari- 
son of  V.  17  and  39  shows,  and  he  must,  consequently,  have 
spent  parts  at  least  of  two  days  on  the  road ;  we  ma}',  there- 
fore, suppose  that  Lazarus  died  in  the  night  which  followed  the 
arrival  of  the  messenger  and  was  buried  the  day  after,  and  that 
this  part  of  the  day  on  which  he  was  buried,  and  the  fourth, 

25 


278  Chap.  XI.  — v.  20-31. 

which  was  not  completed,  are  included  in  the  computation  of 
V.  17. — The  nearness  of  Bethany  to  Jerusalem^  is  mentioned 
to  show  that  it  was  easy  for  the  friends  who  testified  their  sym- 
pathy, to  visit  the  sisters ;  according  to  Maimonides,  de  Luctu,  c. 
13,  §  2,  the  stated  condolences  lasted  for  seven  days.  The  d;ro 
gives  this  force :  "lying  at  the  end  of  fifteen  stadia,"  (ten  stadia 
are  equivalent  to  the  modern  geographical  mile  of  sixty  to  the 
degree,)  Winer,  p.  513.  The  al  vrepc  in  ancient  Greek,  desig- 
nates the  principal  person  and  the  company  surrounding  him, 
but  in  Plutarch  and  his  cotemporaries  it  is  a  paraphrastic  ex- 
pression for  one  individual.  Acts  xiii.  13,  is  an  instance  of  the 
older  usage ;  here,  however,  we  have  the  later  usage,  as  the  too 
d.dtl(poi)  abzaJv  shows. 

V.  20-22.  The  similarity  of  the  character  of  Martha  and 
Mary  in  John,  (connect  with  this  narrative,  chap.  xii.  1-8,)  with 
the  depicture  of  the  same  character  given  in  Luke  x.  38-42,  is 
very  remarkable.  Martha  (probably  the  elder  sister,)  appears 
here  also  as  the  active  one,  expressing  her  thoughts,  (v.  39 ;) 
Mary  is  more  completely  absorbed  in  her  anguish.  As  the 
tidings  of  Christ's  arrival  become  known,  Martha  goes  out  for 
the  purpose  of  meeting  him,  while  Mary  remains  at  home.  Of 
Mary  it  is  said,  that  she  sought  to  indulge  her  sorrow  by  visit- 
ing the  grave.  While  Martha  is  at  once  disposed  when  she 
meets  Jesus  to  converse  with  him,  Mary  sinks  at  the  feet  of  the 
Master  weeping  and  uttering  but  a  word,  (v.  32.)  Both  sisters  at 
the  glhnpse  of  Jesus  express  in  their  first  words  a  regret  which 
breathes  their  confidence  in  him  ;  a  regret  that  he  had  not  been 
present.  Bengel :  Ex  quo  colligi  potest,  hunc  earum  fuisse 
sermonem  ante  fratris  obitum :  utinam  adesset  dominus  Jesus  ! 
(from  which  may  be  gathered  that  before  their  brother's  death 
this  had  been  their  language :  O  that  the  Lord  Jesus  were  here  !) 
In  the  minor  of  the  conditional  proposition  the  pluperfect  is  here 
connected  with  av;in  v.  32,  the  aorist  has  a  similar  meaning, 
(see  iv,  10.)  The  assuredness  of  the  conviction  that  the  pres- 
ence of  Jesus  would  have  prevented  the  death,  is  in  itself  no 
little  evidence  of  strength  of  faith,  but  a  greater  one  is  found 

1  The  village  is  still  in  existence,  and  is  three-quarters  of  an  hour's  ride  from  tho 
Damascus  Gate  of  Jerusalem,  Robinson,  i.  p.  130,  (ii.  99-101,  of  the  Ist  ed.,  i. 
431,  last  cd.     Tr.) 


The  Raising  of  Lazarus.  279 

in  V.  22,  if  what  is  there  uttered  is,  as  it  appears  to  be,  au 
expression  of  the  hope  of  a  restoration  from  death,  which  may, 
it  is  true,  have  been  excited  by  the  assurance  which  Christ  had 
given,  V.  4. 

V.  23-27.  Jesus  testing  her  faitli  at  first,  still  speaks  inde- 
terminately; this  indeterminate  declaration  is  regarded  by 
Martha  as  a  repression  of  her  ardent  hopes,  v.  22.  With  sub- 
limity and  power,  Jesus  directs  the  glance  of  her  faith  upon 
his  own  person  as  the  centre.  In  his  own  person  lie  the  powers 
of  the  resurrection,  (negatively,)  and  the  !^coyj,  "the  life,"  (posi- 
tively,) see  ch.  v.  21,  and  Deut.  xxx.  20.  He  is  the  vanquisher 
of  death  for  the  dead  and  for  the  living,  faith  is  in  both  cases 
the  condition;  "though  he  were  dead,"  xdv  dTro&duY^,  and 
"whosoever  liveth,"  rrac  o  C^v,  stand  in  opposition.  It  is  im- 
possible to  mistake  here  as  to  the  use  which  the  Redeemer 
makes  of  the  event  for  the  promotion  of  faith  on  the  part  of 
the  sisters.  Martha,  like  Peter,  vi.  69,  confesses  her  faith  in 
that  Messiah  who  is  the  raiser  of  the  dead. 

V.  28-31.  Filled  with  joyous  hope  by  the  words  of  the 
Saviour,  she  hastens  to  her  sister,  and  (only  to  arouse  her  to 
make  haste,  shall  we  say?)  tells  her  that  the  Master  calls  her; 
she  does  it  "  secretly,"  Id&pa,  desiring  that  the  interview  should 
be  confidential,  mindful  too  perhaps,  in  her  love,  of  the  peril 
which  had  recently  threatened  Christ  in  Jerusalem.  The  Ori- 
entals, to  this  day,  (ISTiebuhr,  Journey  to  Arabia,  i.  p.  86,)  repair 
frequently,  as  in  ancient  times,  to  the  graves  of  their  loved 
ones,  see  Talmud,  tr.  Seraachoth,  c.  8,  "For  three  days  the 
grave  of  the  dead  is  visited  ;"  as  Maiy  hastens  to  the  vicinity 
of  the  place  of  burial,  the  Jews  who  were  present  suppose  that 
she  is  about  to  perform  that  duty,  and  hasten  after  her. 

V.  32-34.  "With  the  same  words  whicli  her  sister  had  used, 
she  meets  Jesus,  casts  herself  reverentially  at  his  feet,  and 
weeps  in  silence.  What  is  the  meaning  of  iuSjSpi/iijffaTO — ia'jTovt 
^E/jij3oi/idofiac,  like  ^ocacuo,  j^pi/iahco,  means  in  the  predominant 
usage,  "to  be  moved  with  indignation,  to  threaten  vehemently," 
(Suidas,  Ilcsychius,  Etymol.  magn.,  Passow,)  and  is  so  used  in 
the  iSTeu'  Testament,  Mark  xiv.  5,  i.  43,  Matt.  ix.  30.  Retain- 
ing this  signification,  taking  a  wrong  view  at  the  same  time  of 


280  Chap.  XT.  — v.  34-37. 

the  true  human  nature  of  Jesus,  Chiysostom  and  Euthymius 
interpret :  "  he  reproved  his  own  rising  emotion,"  {tuj  rtps'jfxau ;) 
C}Till,  Theophylact:  "through  his  divine  nature  he  chided  the 
human;"  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  Lampe:  "he  was  angered 
at  the  unbehef  of  the  Jews,  (v.  38,)  and  of  the  sisters  also." 
Reverting  to  this  latter  way  of  taking  it,  the  most  recent  critics, 
Strauss  and  Fritzsche,  maintain  that  it  is  entirely  in  keeping 
with  Christ's  character,  as  John  delineates  him,  that  as  a  thau- 
maturgus  easily  aroused,  he  should  fly  into  a  passion  at  every 
exhibition  of  a  refusal  to  believe,  in  fact,  should  quiver  with 
indignation,  (cf  Fritzsche,  in  the  Allg.  Litteraturz,  1840,  !N'ro. 
100,  and  1841,  Isro.  115.)  Jesus,  it  is  true,  w^eeps,  and  asks 
sadly  :  Where  have  ye  laid  him  ? — but  his  question,  according 
to  Fritzsche,  is  rather  put  in  anger;  his  tears,  according  to 
Strauss,  prove  no  more  than  that  the  passion  of  anger  had 
passed  over  into  that  of  sorrow.  The  Jews  indeed,  according 
to  V,  36,  see  in  the  tears  of  Jesus  a  token  of  his  love,  but 
Strauss  sees  in  this  only  an  illustration  of  the  t^-pe  of  John's 
representation,  according  to  which,  the  enemies  of  Jesus  put  a 
false  interpretation  on  all  his  actions.  In  this  case,  the  ancient 
enemies  of  Christ  certainly  made  no  such  misinterpretation ; 
that  was  reserved  for  his  enemies  of  modern  times,  and  they 
have  made  it  with  a  pei'verseness  to  which  we  shall  not  pay 
respect  so  far  as  to  involve  ourselves  in  a  controversy  with  it. 
"We  proceed  to  a  more  particular  examination  of  the  meaning 
of  ifx^pciidofiac :  the  analogy  of  the  language,  if  not  the  usage, 
justifies  the  adoption  of  the  meaning,  "to  be  moved  with 
grief."  Dp:[xdoiiai  designates  the  noisy  manifestation  of  emo- 
tion, not  only  of  indignation,  but  also  of  fervor  ;  ^pcfidaau),  which 
is  related,  designates  a  shaking  with  j^^tulayice  ;  j^pdacrco,  when 
intransitive,  means  "to  ferment,"  when  transitive,  "to  shake 
violently  " — ip^pi/mopiai  could  therefore  be  used  of  the  shaking, 
of  the  groaning  produced  by  grief  It  is  related  to  fremere, 
which  is  also  used  in  speaking  of  sorrow,  Virgil,  ^n.  vi.  175, 
Ovid,  Metam.  iii.  628,  (528,  tr.)  Gesenius,  Thesaurus,  takes 
fremo  as  the  primary  definition  of  'li'i,  and  as  special  senses 
"with  indignation,"  "with  sorroiv.''  Tip  T.Mzbpa-i  may  be  con- 
eidered  parallel  with  iv  kaoTuj  v.  38,  and  we  compare  in  addi- 


The  Raising  of  Lazarus.  281 

tion,  Mark  viii.  12,  dvaarevd^a^  rijj  Ttvvjfiazc,  that  is,  internally, 
though  perhaps  accompanied  by  a  suppressed  sound.^  Tapdaaiji 
with  la'jTov,  paraphrastical  for  the  middle  zapdaazadai^  yet  with 
a  prominence  of  the  spontaneity,  (Winer,  p.  234 ;)  according  to 
Liieke,  it  is  spiritual  agitation,  as  in  ch.  xiii.  21,  izandy&ri  zuj 
Tzvs'j/iazi,  but  the  reflexive  form  would  then  be  less  eas}'-  to 
explain;  let  the  fact  rather  be  recalled,  that  it  is  this  vehe- 
ment, deep-seated,  inward  sorrow  by  which,  more  than  by  any 
other,  an  agitation  of  the  upper  part  of  the  body  is  produced, 
(Euthymius.)  If,  then,  the  language  marks  the  profoundest 
emotion  of  sorrow,  the  question  arises,  what  was  its  object? 
According  to  Augustine,  Olshausen,  sorrow  over  death  in  gen- 
eral, over  the  mournful  features  of  human  life ;  according  to 
De  "Wette,  it  was,  "that  the  sisters  whom  he  loved  could  not 
have  been  spared  this  sorrow,"  (compare,  however,  verses  4,  15, 
42.)  By  Calvin  and  Maldonatus  was  already  made  the  just 
observation,  that  the  reason  is  clearly  expressed  in  v.  33,  the 
tears  of  Mary  drew  forth  the  tears  of  the  Jews  who  followed 
her,  and  the  sympathizing  Saviour  enters  into  this  sorrow, 
(Rom.  xii.  15;)  yet  a  general  sympathy  with  the  griefs  of 
human  life  may  also  be  comprehended,  (Calvin.)  But,  if  it  be 
asked,  why  weep,  when  the  next  moment  life  is  to  be  restored 
to  the  dead  ?  we  reply  with  Neander :  the  sympathizing  phy- 
sician in  the  midst  of  a  family  drowned  in  grief — will  not  his 
tears  flow  with  theirs,  though  he  knows  that  he  has  the  power 
of  giving  immediate  relief?  The  same  agitation  is  exhibited  a 
second  time,  when  the  Saviour  is  standing  by  the  grave,  (v.  38.) 
V.  35-37.  On  the  way  to  the  grave,  which  was  at  hand,  the 
internal  agitation  finds  vent  in  tears;  the  love  of  Jesus  to 
Lazarus  leads  some  of  these  Jews  who  seem  to  have  been  well- 
meaning,  but  who  were  not  aware  of  what  had  passed  between 
him  and  the  sisters,  to  put  the  question  with  surprise,  why 
Jesus  had  not  brought  help  at  an  earlier  period.  K  they 
had  appealed  to  the  earlier  raisings  of  the  dead  in  Gal- 
ilee, the  suspicion  of  the  critics  would  have  been  excited, 
that  this   narrative  was  a  fiction  of  a  later  author,  who  had 

*  Under  the  word  "  ergrimmte,"  Luther  embraces  both  meanings,  ia  Acts  xvii,  16, 
that  of  anger,  and  in  this  passage,  that  of  mournful  emotion ;  see  Walch,  B.  vi.  p. 
1097. 

25* 


282  Chap.  XI.— v.  38-46. 

those  accounts  before  him  ;  now,  however,  as  these  citizens  of 
Jerusalem  (very  naturally)  make  their  appeal  to  the  last  great 
miracle  which  was  fixed  in  their  memories,  Strauss  urges  Luke 
vii.  17,  and  presumes  they  must  necessarily  have  known  of  any 
other  restorations  from  death,  had  there  been  such. 

V.  38-40.  The  rich  Orientals  buried  their  dead  in  sepulchres 
hewn  in  the  rocks,  (Matt,  xxvii.  60,)  through  which  were  pass- 
ages of  the  kind  that  may  be  seen  to  this  day  in  the  Cata- 
combs at  Rome ;  on  both  sides  of  these  passages  were  openings 
(rj^3j)  in  which  the  bodies  were  deposited;  many  of  these  caves 
entered  into  the  earth  horizontally,  others  perpendicularly; 
iTTsxecTo,  therefore,  may  just  as  well  mean  laid  upon  as  laid 
against,  cf.  Nicolai,  de  Sepulchris  Heb.  c.  x.  11. — What  is 
Martha's  object  in  the  words,  v.  39?  "Would  she  deter  Jesus, 
because  it  is  now  too  late  ?  (Schweizer.)  Or  would  she  with- 
hold from  Jesus  what  could  not  but  be  physically  revolting  ? 
(Bengel.)  We  think  that  our  Lord's  answer  shows  that  in  her 
mind  despondency  was  predominant,  which  was  not  necessarily 
entirely  relieved  by  the  hope  which  had  been  aroused,  (v.  28.) 
That  corruption  had  actually  taken  place,  it  must  be  admitted, 
cannot  be  satisfactorily  proven  from  her  language,  for  the  yap 
shows  that  she  does  not  speak  from  direct  knowledge.^  The 
Apologists  attach  all  weight  to  the  fact,  that  putrefaction  in 
Oriental  countries  takes  place  sooner  than  with  us,  and  it  is 
unquestionable  that  in  warm  climates  the  corpse  in  a  relaxed 
condition  goes  into  decomposition  without  the  intervening 
condition  of  rigidity  usual  with  us,  Burdach,  Physiol,  iii.  §  634. 
But  we  should  not  forget  that  the  occurrence  must  have  taken 
place  in  winter,  (see  on  x.  22,  and  40-42.)  She  is  aroused 
from  her  despondency  by  a  reference  to  the  promise,  v.  23, 
where  indeed  there  is  a  verbal  difierence  in  the  phraseology'', 
(cf.  v.  4,  and  on  x.  26.) 

V.  41,  42.  Jesus  solicits  the  Father  for  the  miracle,  as  in  vi. 
11,  yet  he  himself  performs  it,  according  to  v.  11,  24,  43,  and 
and  so  in  vi.  6  also ;  but  chap.  v.  19,  26  and  x.  18  have  already 
shown  that  in  every  thing  that  is  done  by  Christ,  the  Father  is 
to  be  regarded  as  absolute  cause ;  we  have,  moreover,  on  the 

1  It  is  a  matter  of  some  surprise  that  Lazarus  had  not  been  embalmed,  as  the 
sisters  had  nard  at  least  in  the  house,  (xii.  3. ) 


The  Raising  of  Lazarus.  283 

part  of  Christ,  perhaps,  to  imagine  only  a  soliciting  factor,  to 
whom  a  process  in  the  dead  person,  reducible  to  a  divine  caus- 
ality, is  respondent.  AYhat  now  occurs  is  an  answer  to  a 
prayer  of  Christ — when  did  Christ  make  that  prayer  ?  Bengel 
thinks  it  was  in  v.  4,  but  if  we  could  suppose  that  the  Redeem- 
er may  have  called  every  internal  reference  to  the  absolute 
ground  of  his  own  proper  being,  a  prayer,  this  question  could 
hardly  be  raised.  Strauss  finds  something  to  stumble  at  in  that 
the  words  addressed  to  God  are  interrupted  by  a  reflection  de- 
signed for  those  that  stood  by,  and  thus  the  prayer  becomes,  as 
Weisse  styles  it,  a  prayer  for  show.  But  does  there  not  lie  in 
this  so-called  reflection  a  monition  to  those  that  hear,  and  can 
we  then  allege  that  the  reference  to  God,  and  the  reference  sug- 
gested by  love  to  those  that  hear,  exclude  one  another  ? 

V.  43,  44,  Does  the  act  of  restoration  to  life  commence 
with  this  call?  John  appears  to  have  thought  so,  but  the 
thanks  expressed  in  v.  41,  permit  the  supposition  that  the 
moment  of  awaking  was  earlier,  and  that  the  call  only  eflected 
the  coming  forth  of  him  who  had  already  been  restored  to  life. 
In  the  interest  of  the  natural  explanation,  Ilase,  1.  c.  §  99, 
remarks :  death  can  only  so  far  be  brought  into  the  question, 
"as  in  the  mysterious  approximation  of  death  and  life,  life 
again  by  the  interposition  of  Jesus  overcame  death,"  and 
Kern:  (Tubing.  Zeitschrift,  1839,  1  11.  p.  182,)  "Except  that 
here  also,  the  possibility  must  be  admitted,  that  life  had  not 
been  absolutely  interrupted,  but  had  only  vanished  to  that 
point  at  which,  without  the  vivific  influence  of  Christ,  it  would 
have  been  separated  from  these  earthly  relations."^  But  can 
this  view  of  the  case  be  reconciled  with  verses  14  and  25  ? — In 
the  same  way  as  the  Egyptian  mummies,  ever}'  limb  was  sepa- 
rately wrapped ;  the  linen  cloth,  crouddrjiou,  on  the  mummies 
extends  down  to  the  breast. 

V.  45,  46.     It  might  be  anticipated  from  what  has  preceded, 

1  Were  it  otherwise,  it  has  been  asked,  why  did  not  Lazarus  speak  of  that  which 
is  beyond  the  grave  ?  But  had  lie  even  done  so,  we  would  have  had  no  reason 
•whatever  for  surprise,  that  John  should  say  nothing  of  it.  We  should  remember, 
moreover,  the  cases  of  persons  apparently  dead,  who,  though  on  waking,  they  have 
declared  that  they  experienced  something  extraordinary,  yet  with  a  sacred  reserve, 
have  refused  to  give  any  account  of  it. 


284  Chap.  XL— v.  45-52. 

that  among  tne  friends  of  the  family  there  would  be  suscepti- 
ble hearts,  and  the  sequel  confirms  this ;  in  some  of  the  others, 
however,  in  this  case,  as  too  frequently  elsewhere,  was  verified 
what  Calvin  says;  "Those  who  have  not  a  strong  fear  of  God, 
and  reverence  for  him,  though  they  should  see  heaven  and  earth 
mingling  together,  with  inflexible  ingratitude  would  never 
cease  to  reject  sound  doctrine,"  (apud  quos  non  viget  Dei  metus 
et  reverentia,  etiamsi  ccelum  videant  terrse  misceri,  prsefracta  in- 
gratitudiue  sanam  doctrinam  respuere  numquam  desinent.) 

The  pretended  internal  grounds  opposed  to  the  credibility  of 
the  narrative,  have  been  considered  in  the  preceding  remarks ; 
in  closing,  we  return  to  the  difliculty  which  has  been  urged 
among  recent  writers,  especially  by  Schneckenburger,  iiber  den 
Ursprung  des  ersten  kanon.  Ev.  ("  On  the  Origin  of  the  first 
Canonical  Gospel,")  p.  10,   seq. — the  silence  of  Matthew  in 
regard  to  the  raising  of  Lazarus,  a  difficulty  which  has  been 
met  by  Kern,  iiber  den  Ursprung  des  Ev.  Matthai,  ("  On  the 
Origin  of  the  Gospel  of  Matthew,")  only  so  far  as  rather  to 
cast  the  shadow  of  the  suspicion  on  John.     It  is  urged  that 
not  only  must  the  other  Evangelists  have  mentioned  this  rais- 
ing from  the  dead,  as  one  of  the  greatest  of  miracles,  but  they 
had  the  additional  reason  that  it  had  the  most  direct  part  in 
bringing  about  the  final  catastrophe,  the  death  of  Jesus.     The 
opinion  (Grotius,    Olshausen,)  that  the    silence  of  the   other 
Gospels,  was  occasioned  by  a  foresight  which  desired  to  shield 
Lazarus,  is  encumbered  with  too  many  difficulties.     Hase  pre- 
sents the  correct  solution  :  "  The  secret  lies  in  the  circumstances 
common  to  the  synoptical  Evangelists,  and  which  have  led  to 
their  silence  in  regard  to  all  the  earlier  events  in  Judea,"  thus 
Kern,  Liicke,  Neauder.     If  the  synoptical  Gospels  have  resulted 
from  a  uniting  together  of  single  groups  of  narrative  iu  the 
oral  or  written  tradition,  if  especially,  the  history  of  the  pas- 
sion was  transmitted  as  a  whole,  we  can  comprehend  how  a 
single  particular,  and  especially  this  narrative,  which  is  only 
preparatory  to  the  catastrophe,  may  have  been  omitted ;  Mat- 
thew and  Mark  are  silent,  too,  in  regard  to  the  raising  of  the 
young  man  at  Nain. 


Determination  to  put  Jesus  to  death.  285 

The  Determination    of  the    Sanhedrim  to   put   Jesus 
DEATH. — V.  47-57. 

V.  47,  48.  The  Sanhedrim  perceived  that  the  decree  of  ex- 
commuuicatioii  did  not  suffice  to  deter  men  from  believinc:  in 
Jesus.  In  order  to  terrify  those  that  were  favorable  to  him — 
and,  as  Calvin,  correctly  regarding  the  springs  of  mental  action, 
has  observed, — in  order  to  tranquilize  their  own  consciences, 
the  matter  was  represented  in  such  a  way,  as  to  create  the  im- 
pression that  political  danger  threatened,  in  case  Jesus  was 
generally  recognized  and  proclaimed  as  king  of  Israel,  Calvin ; 
Sceleri  obtenditur  speciosus  color,  boni  publici  studium — ita 
hypocritfe,  etiamsi  intus  coarguat  eos  conscientia,  postea  tamen 
vanis  figmentis  se  inebriant,  ut  videantur  peccando  innoxii, 
interea  mauifeste  secum  ipsi  dissident,  ("  a  specious  color,  the 
desire  to  promote  the  public  welfare,  is  put  upon  their  crime — 
thus  h}'pocrites,  though  conscience  is  inwardly  reproving  them, 
intoxicate  themselves  with  empty  fancies,  that  they  may  seem 
guiltless  of  sinning,  meanwhile  they  are  clearly  in  conflict  with 
themselves.")  "Ozc^  which  is  left  untranslated  by  Luther,  is 
elucidative  of  the  thought  which  remains  to  be  supplied: 
"something  must  be  done,  for  this  man,  &c."  ToTto^  may 
designate  either  the  land,  the  city,  or  the  temple ;  connected 
with  aytov,  it  is  used  of  the  temple.  Acts  vi.  13,  Matt  xxiv.  15, 
without  dyco:;^  2  Maccab.  v.  19,  Acts  xxi.  28,  where,  however, 
it  has  ohzoz  with  it.  We  might  suppose  that  b  t6~oz  xal  to 
It^voc,  was  phraseologic,  like  the  German  "Land  und  Leute," 
"land  and  people,"  (Eras.  Schmid,  Bengel,)  but  there  are  no 
examples  of  such  a  use.  Al'pztv,  "  to  destroy,"  used  both  of 
men  and  things  ;  ^ix(ov,  however,  may  be  connected  with  al'pecv, 
and  be  taken  as  the  genitive  of  separation,  (Luke  vi.  29,)  and 
then  aiptiv  means  "to  take  away." 

V.  49-52.  The  passionate  reproach  of  the  high  priest:  "Ye 
know  nothing  at  all,"  obx  dloazs  oboh,  censures  them  in  gene- 
ral for  debating  on  a  matter  where  the  proper  course  was  so 
obvious.  It  was  certainly  remarkable  that  the  man  who  bore 
the  office  of  high  priest  the  year  that  Jesus  was  put  to  death, 
and  who  consequently  cooperated  in  producing  his  death,  should 


286  Chap.  XI.  — v.  53-57. 

in  these  words  involuntarily  express  the  purpose  of  God  in  that 
death,  (Schweizer;)  he  thus  became  like  Balaam,  as  it  were,  a 
prophet  against  his  will,  (see  Tholuck's  Supplem.  to  comm.  on 
Epis.  to  Hebrews,  Beilage,  2d  ed.  p.  21.)  Paulus,  Kuinol, 
Liicke.  De  Wette,  supposed  that  the  Evangelist  regarded  the 
gift  of  prophecy  as  connected  with  the  office  of  high  priest, 
and  find  this  thought  expressed  in  the  words,  v.  51,  "being 
high  priest,"  apitzpio^  wv ;  but  Liicke  himself,  3d  ed.,  now  con- 
fesses, that  no  express  warrant  for  that  opinion  can  be  fur- 
nished ;  moreover,  why  on  that  supposition  would  the  words, 
"that  year,"  r.  hcaozod  ixecuou,  be  added?  The  Evangelist 
could  not  have  meant  it  merely  to  fix  the  chronology  of  the 
event,  after  v.  49  this  would  have  been  superfluous ;  we  have  in 
xviii.  13  the  same  formula  again,  where  De  Wette  is  satisfied 
with  the  answer,  that  the  z.  ivcaurou  ixelvou  is  a  "  mere  mechan- 
ical repetition."  "We  would  be  much  more  near  the  truth  in 
finding  in  it  this  meaning:  "Who  precisely  in  this  memorahle 
year  was  high  priest,"  (Lampe,  Schweizer.)  Let  us  now  direct 
our  attention  more  closely  to  the  interpretation  which  the 
Evangelist  puts  upon  his  words.  Caiaphas  had  only  spoken 
of  the  theocratic  people,  John  gives  to  his  words  a  reference  to 
the  geiiuine  people  of  God,  and  with  a  retrospect  to  x.  16, 
speaks  of  a  union  of  all  nations,  which  is  to  be  effected  through 
the  death  of  Christ.  On  the  expression,  "  the  children  of  God," 
texva  TOO  d-sou,  Chrysostom  observes :  "  Those  that  were  to 
become  such,"  drro  too  /jti?2ouTO!;  easa&ai,  Calvin:  "Erant  in 
Dei  pectore  filii,"  "in  the  bosom  of  God  they  were  already 
sons." 

Y.  58-55.  Christ  now  escapes  into  the  region  of  Jordan 
lying  north  of  the  Dead  Sea,  as  in  chap,  x.,  after  the  commo- 
tion, he  went  to  Peroea.  Jerome  says  that  Ephraim  lay  twenty 
Roman  miles  north  of  Jerusalem ;  Eusebius  makes  the  distance 
eight  Roman  miles,  (the  Roman  mile  was  about  1614  yards.) 
It  is  difficult  then,  however,  to  see  how  it  could  have  lain  near 
to  the  wilderness,  to  wit :  of  Judah  ;i  it  seems,  therefore,  that 

1  This  Ephraim  is  by  Lightfoot,  Reland,  and  rfthers,  regarded  as  the  same  with 
the  one  mentioned  in  2  Chrou.  xiii.  19,  and  by  Joscphus,  de  bello  Jud.  iv.  9,  9,  and 
■with  some  probability,  as  both  passages  point  to  a  site  north  of  Jerusalem.  It 
irould  have  lain  then  in  the  neighborhood  of  Bethlehem ;  ou  the  way  from  Jericho 


Determination  to  put  Jesus  to  death.  287 

another  Ephraim  must  be  intended.  The  wilderness  of  Judah 
not  only  stretched  to  the  north  corner  of  the  Dead  Sea,  but 
beyond  it  as  far  as  Gilgal,  cf  Tholuck's  Exposition  of  the 
Psalms,  Fs.  Ixiii.  On  this  view,  the  synoptical  Gospels  repre- 
senting Jesus  as  coming  from  Jericho  to  Jerusalem,  and  John 
representing  him  as  coming  from  Ephraim,  are  in  harmony,  for 
by  that  site  of  Ephraim  runs  the  road  to  Jericho. — The  ;fw^«a, 
V.  55,  is  the  vicinity  of  Jerusalem.  Those  who  were  unclean 
were  obliged  to  purify  themselves  previously  to  the  Passover, 
by  sacrifices  and  other  ritual  observances,  (Numb.  ix.  10,  seq. 
2  Chron.  xxx.  17,  seq.) 

V.  56,  57.  Ti  dox£7  ujuTu  is  connected  with  what  follows  by 
the  Vulgate,  Ethiopic,  Erasmus,  Wahl,  and  is  translated  by  the 
latter  as  a  prseter:  "What  think  you,  that  he  has  not  come?" 
Tc  doxzT  (Toi,  however,  usually  serves  as  a  preliminary  question, 
and  as  regards  the  tense,  the  aor.  conj.  after  ou  /iij  but  seldom 
marks  past  time,  (Hartung,  Partikell.  ii.  p.  156  ;)  nor  had  the 
time  for  coming  completely  expired,  so  that  it  is  better  with 
Beza  to  translate:  "That  he  will  not  come?"  Thus  the  sus- 
pense on  the  part  of  those  who  repaired  to  the  feast  is  brought 
before  our  eyes,  and  by  the  xac,  v.  57,  the  expectation  of  the 
rulers  of  the  people  that  he  would  come,  is  made  coordinate 
with  it. 

to  Bethel,  Robinson,  found  a  frightful  wilderness,  (ii.  560.)  Where,  however, 
fl  ipifioc  stands  without  any  thing  additional,  it  either  means  the  desert  of  Arabia  or 
of  Judah,  perhaps  the  desert  of  Jericho. — As  for  the  rest,  the  road  from  Jericho  to 
Bethel  is  a  day's  journey. 


CHAPTER   XII. 


Jesus  anointed  by  Mary. — v.  1-8. 

Y.  1,  2.  A  WEEK  before  tlie  feast  Jesus  makes  his  appearance. 
The  genit.  zou  ndaya  is  to  be  resolved  into  Tipo  zou  r.day^a.^  and 
npo  £^  jfjiepaju  is  equivalent  to  ec  rjfxipa/;,  as  we  say  in  German  : 
"  vor  drei  Tagen  geschah  es,"  (literally,  "  before  three  days  it 
happened,")  meaning  on  the  third  day.  Amos  i.  1,  Septuag. 
Tipb  duo  izcov  zoo  (reiafioo,  Thucydides,  Hist.  ii.  34 ;  Ttpdzpiza, 
equivalent  to  triduo  ante,  three  days  before.  It  has  been  made 
a  question,  hovs^  these  six  days  are  reckoned,  whether  they  in- 
clude the  terminus  a  quo  and  ad  quern,  or  only  the  term,  a  quo, 
or  exclude  both  ?  (cf  Jacobi,  in  the  Stud.  1838,  4  H.  p.  894, 
and  iTeander,  1.  c.  p.  593.)  It  is  not  probable  that  the  journey 
and  arrival  took  place  on  the  Sabbath,  they  occurred  perhaps, 
therefore,  on  Friday  late  in  the  evening,  the  meal-time  would 
then  be  that  which  was  observed  at  the  beginning  of  the  Sab- 
bath.^ We  should  have  expected  from  the  traits  of  Martha's 
character  given  in  chap,  xi.,  and  in  Luke  x.  38,  seq.,  that  she 
would  attend  to  the  domestic  arrangements,  and  give  expres- 
sion in  this  way  to  her  love  for  our  Lord ;  according  to  Matt, 
xxvi.  6  and  Mark  xiv.  3,  the  entertainment  was  given  at  the 
house  of  Simon,  who  formerly  had  been  a  leper — a  circum- 
stance which,  when  we  consider  the  similarity  which  aside  from 
this  exists  in  the  other  particulars,  is  not  of  sufficient  import- 
ance to  justify  the  supposition  that  two  distinct  facts  are  de- 
scribed ;  the  question  might  be  asked,  whether  he  may  not  have 
been  Martha's   landlord,  or  even   her  husband?  (Heumann.) 

1  According  to  tr.  Schabbath.  c.  xvi.  2,  cf.  Maimonides,  three  meal-times  -were 
obflerved,  Friday  evening,  Sabbath  morning  and  Sabbath  evening. 
(288) 


Jesus  anointed  by  Mary.  289 

Montion  is  made  of  Lazarus  sitting  at  the  table  with  them,  as 
evidence  of  his  complete  restoration. 

V.  3.  This  superabounding  token  of  love  which  our  Saviour 
accepted  in  such  a  way  as  fully  to  acknowledge  its  merits,  is  in 
perfect  keeping  with  the  character  of  ^Mary.  It  was  not  un- 
usual to  connect  the  anointing  of  the  feet  with  the  ablutions 
which  took  place  previous  to  entertainments,  cf.  Luke  vii.  46, 
the  Talmud  tr.  Menachoth,  f.  82  ;  Aristophanes,  Vespse,  v.  G05 : 
xai  Ttpcoza  /iku  -j  duydzr^p  [xs  d~o'A^7j  xal  zch  Tzod'  dhc<f7j  xai  Tzpoaxu- 
f!}aaa  (fdrjar^^  "and  first  my  daughter  washes  me  and  anoints 
my  feet,  and  stooping  over  me  gives  me  a  kiss."  The  nard, 
precious  in  itself,  is  here  further  characterized  by  the  addition 
of  -tarcxo^.  Fritzsche  on  Mark  xiv.  3,  defended  the  derivation 
of  that  word  from  7:ivco,  "potable,"  the  opposite  is  maintained 
by  Winer,  p.  90,  and  Bretschneider,  but  in  the  review  of 
Bretschneider's  Lexicon  in  the  Hall.  Litteraturz.  1840,  p.  179, 
seq.,  Fritzsche  maintains  his  opinion  in  such  a  way  as  to  com- 
pel up  to  the  present  time  a  suspension  of  judgment.  "Whether 
the  word  mean  "genuine"  or  "potable,"  it  marks  in  either 
case  the  preciousness,  which  is  also  clear  from  the  considerable 
price  mentioned,  (300  denarii  are  wortb  about  $45.00.)  The 
bestowment  of  an  entire  pound  of  this  oil  does  in  fact  seem  to 
be  a  great  piece  of  luxury,  yet  the  high  price  and  the  (rui^rpcipaffa 
in  Mark  xiv.  3,  show  that  we  could  not  well,  with  Meyer,  main- 
tain that  only  a  part  of  that  quantity  had  been  bestowed. 
Matthew  and  Mark  speak  only  of  an  anointing  of  the  head, 
not  of  the  feet ;  according  to  Luke  vii.  46,  the  former  was  the 
usual,  the  latter  the  more  extraordinary  mode,  which  is  the 
reason  that  John  gives  prominence  to  it.  To  the  xazkfzzv  used 
by  !Mark,  7jhc(ps  corresponds,  for  dXzcjxiia  is  the  fluid,  and  iiilaiia 
the  tenacious  ointment.  The  fact  seems  conclusively  to  prove 
that  the  family  were  in  good  circumstances,  if  the  inference 
may  not,  perhaps,  be  drawn  from  the  zez-jpr^xzv,  (she  hath  kept,) 
that  the  oil  by  some  chance  or  other  obtained  long  ago  had 
been  preserved  as  a  treasure. 

V.  4-6.  This  one  trait  of  Judas  unlocks  his  soul  to  a  glance, 
which  renders  clear  all  that  follows.  He  has  been  put  in  charge 
of  the  money,  which  served  at  once  for  the  wants  of  Jesus, 
and  for  the  poor,  and  which  was  supplied  entirely  by  charity, 

2G 


290  Chap.  XIL— v.  7-13. 

(Luke  viii.  3.)  He  could  prevail  upon  himself,  not  once  only, 
but  repeatedly  to  purloin  from  this  money,  and  yet  present  him- 
self in  the  presence  of  Jesus,  and  was  so  hypocritical  withal,  aa 
to  wish  to  seem  the  friend  of  the  poor  at  the  very  time  he  was 
robbing  the  poor.  Such  a  man  had  already  smothered  con- 
science— such  a  man  had  no  longer  power  to  pray.  To  such  a 
man,  even  the  paltry  reward  offered  him  by  the  Sanhedrim 
must  have  been  a  lure,  especiall}^  if  he  believed  that  Jesus  could 
liberate  himself  again.  Two  perplexing  questions  now,  indeed, 
arise  :  How  did  John  know  of  the  treachery  of  this  Disciple  ? 
Why  had  Jesus  suffered  the  money  still  to  be  in  his  charge  ? 
Had  John  marked  it  from  certain  symptoms,  and  was  Christ, 
still  cherishing  hope,  unwilling  to  remove  him  ?  That  Christ 
had  not  even  yet  given  him  up,  may  perhaps  be  inferred  from 
the  narrative  of  the  feet  washing.  Baazd^eiu,  according  to 
Theophylact  and  most  of  the  recent  writers,  means  here  to 
"take  away,"  (John  xx.  15,)  equivalent  to  "steal,"  but  in  the 
passages  of  the  ancient  authors,  where  it  might  be  translated 
"steal,"  that  meaning  only  can  be  a  deduction  from  the  former 
sense ;  Heumann  (Liicke  also,  3d  ed.,  Bretschneider,)  has  conse- 
quently insisted,  that  it  should  be  simply  translated,  "  he  bare," 
as  has  been  done  by  the  Vulgate,  Syriac,  Arabic,  Persic,  Luther, 
(Eng.  Transl.,)  yet  the  words  then  seem  rather  idle. 

V.  7,  8.  The  coincidence  with  Mark  xiv.  8,  and  Matt.  xxvi. 
12,  is  remarkable.  Filled  with  a  presentiment  of  that  which 
was  now  close  at  hand,  our  Lord  gives  to  the  action  a  meaning 
as  tender  as  it  was  judicious ;  according  to  which,  that  which 
seemed  prodigality,  answered  a  noble  end.  Is  it  at  all  probable 
that  this  trait  could  have  been  invented,  and  these  words  put  in 
the  mouth  of  Jesus.  Does  it  not  harmonize  completely  with 
those  other  expressions  of  his,  which  (in  opposition  to  the 
Jewish  formal  piety,)  bear  on  them  the  stamp  of  a  piety 
genuinely  human.  We  must  connect  it  with  such  words  as 
those  in  Luke  xii.  33,  to  obtain  the  complete  image  of  Christ. 
Over  against  a  narrow,  contracted  piety,  the  Christian  system 
of  morals  might  make  its  appeal  to  this  language  of  our  Lord, 
to  prove  that  earthly  wealth,  though  it  be  employed  but  in 
subserving  an  idea,  as  in  Art,  for  example,  is  likewise  employed 
in  accordance  with  the  mind  of  Christ. 


Christ's  entrance  into  Jerusalem.  291 


Christ's  entrance  into  Jerusalem. — v.  9-19. 

V.  9-11.  During  the  Sabbath,  the  intelligence  of  the  Sa- 
viour's arrival  was  spreading  in  the  capital,  especially  had  the 
account  of  the  raising  of  Lazarus  increased  the  intensity  of 
interest  on  the  part  of  those  who  had  come  from  a  distance  to 
the  feast ;  as  soon  as  the  law  of  the  Sabbath  permitted,  or  even 
early  on  Sunday,  many  streamed  forth.  The  shameful  design 
against  Lazarus  was  only  spoken  of,  but  not  generally  approved. 

V.  12,  13.  It  would  seem,  according  to  the  other  Evange- 
lists, as  though  Jesus,  without  passing  the  night  lyi  Bethany, 
had  gone  at  once  with  the  caravan  which  was  traveling  to  the 
feast,  by  a  day's  journey  from  Jericho  to  Jerusalem.  But  this 
merely  seems  to  have  been  the  case.  Mark  xi.  1,  especially, 
shows  very  clearly  that  the  Evangelist  does  not  give  the  course 
of  the  journey  by  stations,  but  is  only  concerned  to  mark  the 
place  from  whence  the  entrance  took  place ;  the  ej'c  is  not  di- 
rected to  Avhat  lies  between  Jericho  and  the  entry  into  Jerusa- 
lem.^ "  It  is  possible,  too,"  says  Ilase,  "  that  tradition,  which  felt 
little  solicitude  about  exactness  in  distinguishing  the  dates, 
regarded  as  a  single  whole  the  entire  journey  from  Jericho." 
The  common  view  is,  that  Jesus  remained  over  the  Sabbath  in 
Bethany,  and  made  his  entrance  into  Jerusalem  on  Sunday, 
(palmarum.  Palm  Sunday.)  According  to  Mark  xi.  11,  the  city 
was  not  reached  until  late  in  the  day.*  Especially  among  those 
who  had  repaired  to  the  feast,  probably,  therefore,  among  the 
Galileans,  the  sympathy  exhibited  itself  so  strongly,  that  with- 
out regarding  the  interdiction  of  the  Sanhedrim,  (ix.  22,)  they 
went  forth  to  meet  him  on  the  morning  of  Sunday,  with  the 
tokens  of  honor  which  it  is  usual  to  offer  to  Eastern  kings,  1 
Mac.  xiii.  51,  2  Mac.  x.  7.  The  Targum,  Esther  x.  15,  says: 
"When  Mordecai  went  forth  from  the  gate  of  the  king,  the 

1  If  in  Mark  xi.  1,  the  three  places,  Bethphiige,  Bethany  and  the  Mount  of  Olives, 
are  mentioned  in  the  order  in  which  Jesus  came  to  them,  and  if,  with  tlie  later 
legendary  tndition,  we  could  locate  Bethphage  between  Bethany  and  the  Mount  of 
Olives,  (Raumer,  Paliistina,  p.  305,)  Bethany  would  tlien  seem  to  be  marked  as  the 
place  whence  he  set  out ;  but  the  whole  of  this  is  uncertain.  Least  of  all,  can  the 
i-eading  proposed  by  Fr.  in  loc.  be  correct. 

2  What  is  urged  by  Ebrard,  ii.  p.  588,  against  Strauss,  docs  not  entirely  meet  its 
object. 


11^2  Chap.  XIL— v.  14-24. 

streets  were  covered  with  myrtle,  and  the  porches  with  purple," 
ef.  also,  Herodotus,  1.  7,  c.  54.  Branches  of  the  palm  were 
broken  off  and  strewed  upon  the  road,  others  spread  their 
garments,  (Mark  xi.  8.)  The  artic.  roiv  in  v.  13,  either  refers 
to  the  palms  that  stood  there,  or  to  the  fact  that  palm  branches 
were  generally  used  on  such  occasions.  They  sing  a  jubilant 
call  ffom  Psalm  cxviii.  25,  26,  which  was  also  sung  at  the  feast 
of  Tabernacles,  and  in  the  great  Hallel  at  the  Passover,  and 
which  had  a  Messianic  interpretation  attached  to  it. 

V.  14-16.  When  Jesus  had  reached  the  vicinity  of  the 
Mount  of  Olives,  he  met  the  crowds  that  were  coming  forth 
toward  him,  and  he  now  causes  the  ass'  foal  to  be  brought.  As 
regards  the  object  of  his  triumphal  entrance,  we  adopt  the 
words  of  Ilase,  1.  c.  p.  173  :  "  He  received  what  by  divine  right 
belonged  to  him,  and  showed  the  world  that  he  had  the  power 
of  reigning,  had  he  been  willing  to  reign  by  force.  The 
political  hopes  connected  with  the  Messiah,  had  incited  this 
triumphal  reception ;  in  the  near  prospect  of  his  death,  there 
existed  no  longer  a  reason  why  he  should  shun  such  a  reception. 
On  one  occasion,  at  least,  Jesus  must  openly  proclaim  himself 
Messiah,  and  this  is  the  significance  of  this  entrance."  Mean- 
der, 1.  c.  596:  "This  was  the  result,  caused  by  divine  dispensa- 
tion, of  his  previous  labors. — It  was  the  answer  to  many  ques- 
tions ;  the  answer  which  annihilated  the  last  doubt,  and  thus 
took  its  place  as  one  of  those  events  in  history  Avhich  interest 
the  whole  race."  Jesus  desired  to  declare  himself  the  king  of 
Israel,  but  only  as  the  king  of  peace;  he  selected,  therefore,  the 
animal  that  was  usually  ridden  in  time  of  peace,  while  the  horse 
was  reserved  for  war,  (Hos.  xiv.  4,  (3,)  Pro  v.  xxi.  31,  Jere.  xvii. 
25,)  and  points  directly  to  that  prophecy  (Zechariah  ix.  9,) 
which  likewise  depicts  the  Messiah  as  king  of  peace.  The  dif- 
ference in  Matthew's  account,  which  speaks  of  a  she-ass  and 
her  foal,  has  been  elucidated  by  Ebrard,  p.  590,  seq.  in  a  man- 
ner worthy  of  notice.  On  v.  16,  cf.  ii.  17.  It  may  be  ques- 
tioned, whether  the  ors  kdoqda&rj  has  reference  to  the  impart- 
ation  of  the  Spirit,  (Acts  ii.  33.)  Kru  ore  xtL — they  were 
reminded  of  this,  and  consequently  of  the  fulfillment,  at  the 
same  time  with  the  prophecy;  it  was  the?/,  too,  who  had 
brought  the  ass  (Matt.  xxi.  7,)  to  him. 


Dksire  of  Gentiles  to  see  Jesus.  293 

V.  17-19.  The  Jews  who  had  come  out  earlier,  formed  the 
one  chorus,  those  who  met  them,  (the  xai  in  v,  18,  must  be 
regarded,)  the  other;  Luke  xi^.  37  seems,  as  Gfrorer  also 
observes,  to  point  to  a  reminiscence  of  this  fact. — It  is  not  the 
friends  of  Jesus,  (Chrysostom,)  but  his  enemies,  who  desired 
energetic  measures,  who  utter  the  expression,  v.  19,  "behold 
the  world  is  gone  after  him." 

Discourse  occasioned  by  the  desire  of  Gentiles  to  see 
Jesus.  — V.  20-36. 

V.  20-22.  As  this,  according  to  v.  36,  is  one  of  tlie  last  dis- 
courses, or  the  veiy  last,  and  as  of  the  discourses  of  Jesus  in 
the  temple  in  the  last  week  in  which  his  passion  occurred, 
nothing  more  than  this  is  narrated,  it  is  the  less  to  be  supposed 
with  Ebrard,  that  the  occurrence  took  place  on  the  same  day. 
Filled  mth  the  fundamental  thought  of  the  obstinate  unbelief 
of  the  chosen  people,  with  which  the  depicture  of  the  public 
life  of  our  Lord  closes,  (v.  37,  sc^.)  John  paints  one  scene  more, 
to  present  the  longing  of  the  Gentiles  in  contrast  with  this 
unbelief.  The  present  a.va^ac\>6vrMv  shows,  that  we  are  to  sup- 
pose that  there  were  proselytes  among  them.  Their  reverence 
for  a  teacher  so  honored  is  too  great  to  permit  them  to  address 
him  directly ;  but  their  request  appears  so  extraordinary  even 
to  Philip,  (Matt.  x.  5,)  that  he  fii'st  consults  with  Andrew,  his 
friend,  (i.  45.)  6i)xo  is  used,  also,  to  designate  a  desire,  (1  Cor. 
xiv.  5.) 

V.  23,  24.  The  answer  of  Christ  cannot  well  be  looked 
upon  as  a  refusal  of  the  request — at  any  rate,  if  v.  23  could 
be  so  regarded,  v.  24  could  not.  If  it  could  be  urged  that, 
strictly  speaking,  they  desired  only  to  see  Jesus,  not  to  speak 
with  him,  it  might  be  supposed  that  he  was  ready  to  comply 
with  their  desire,  and  on  that  occasion  made  to  his  Disciples 
the  address  that  follows.  The  leadinsr  tlioui^-ht  in  that  dis- 
course  is  this,  in  the  longing  of  these  Gentiles  is  an  anticipation 
of  the  future  conversion  of  the  world.  Bengel :  Prreludium 
regni  Dei  a  Judais  ad  gentes  transituri,  (a  prelude  to  the  speedy 
transfer  of  the  kingdom  of  God  from  Jews  to  Gentiles.)  Zwin- 
gle  already  makes  reference  to  iv.  35,  where,  too,  the  first  fruits 
u  26* 


294  Chap.  Xn.— v.  25-28. 

excite  anticipations  of  the  harvest.  The  "glorifying,"  do^aa- 
fjid;:,  therefore,  both  here  and  in  v.  28,  has  a  more  special 
reference  to  the  acknowledgment  of  Jesus  in  the  world,  (v. 
32,)  in  connection  with  which  at  the  same  time  "the  glorify- 
ing," oo^aa/^o^,  of  God  was  brought  to  pass,  (xvii.  2,  4.)  Inas- 
much, however,  as  subjection  to  death  was  the  medium  of  that 
glorious  rising,  as  v.  25  immediately  expresses  that  sublime 
thought,  we  may  here  suppose  the  death  also  to  be  included. 
The  dying  seed,  which  only  throws  off  the  visible  integument, 
in  order  to  unfold  the  inner  germ  to  a  tree,  is  a  striking  image 
of  the  Redeemer,  who  laid  off  all  the  external  characteristics 
separable  from  him,  that  he  might  rise  again  as  a  spiritual 
principle  in  the  great  congregation,  for  which  the  path  of 
deepest  humiliation  is  the  path  of  exaltation — as  Heumann  so 
significantly  said  :  "  The  cross  is  but  a  star  shorn  of  its  beams;" 
corresponding  with  this  is  viii.  28.^ 

V.  25,  26.  The  law,  whose  force  he  acknowledges  for  him- 
self, is  the  law  for  all  his  followers.  That  life  which  hesitates 
to  lift  itself  into  the  divine,  in  which  alone  the  ovrcoi;  ^co^,  (1 
Tim.  vi.  19,)  can  be  found,  destroys  its  own  true  existence.  In 
the  language  of  poetic  inspiration,  this  truth  is  with  special 
frequeiicy  set  forth  in  the  East,  but  just  as  commonly  in  a  pan- 
theistic mode  of  apprehension  ;  the  Oriental  mysticism  and  phi- 
losophy demand  that  the  form  should  be  destroyed,  which  should 
rather  be  transfigured.^ — ^^f/i^  like  t^a^.,  means  both  "self"  and 
"life,"  for  the  self  is  the  life.  The  usage  of  the  Evangelist 
alternates  between  lauvbv  aTtoXiaac  and  rrjV  ^oyyiv  azoXiaac,  (losing 
himself,  losing  his  life,)  Matt.  xvi.  25,  Luke  ix.  25,  cf.  the 
Greek  (pclo(po-/^eiv.  In  both  instances  here  the  meaning  of 
"life  "  is  to  be  retained.     Mcatip,  in  accordance  with  the  Hebrew 

1  From  my  Anthology  of  Oriental  Mysticism,  which  certainly  presents  many  yet 
unused  parallels  to  Biblical  phraseology,  Olshausen  cites  the  words  of  Dschelaleddin, 
(p.  109.) 

"  Widely  sow  the  wheat  deep  in  the  lap  of  earth, 
Soon  the  golden,  rifh.  lar;^e  ears  of  grain  have  birth; 
When  again  the  flail  shall  smite  the  ears  in  twain, 
From  the  beaten  ears  comes  bread  to  nourish  man." 

2  Dschelaleddin,  1.  c.  p.  102  : 

"  Know  the  world  of  men  is  Imt  a  glass,  my  son. 
Pilled  with  drops  'which  from  God/s  fount  of  being  run. 
Is  the  wide  world,  then,  with  the  streets  of  heaveii, 
But  a  single  glass  from  Ilis  life  stream  riven. 
Hasten,  break  the  glass  ujvm  the  stonf.  in  twain. 
That  tilt  drop  may  mingli  with  the  stream  again." 


Desire  op  Gentiles  to  see  Jesus.  295 

usage,  is  comparative,  as  iu  Luke  xiv.  26,  "  to  value  less."  Our 
life  like  ourselves  should  plainly  not  be  the  object  lixed  on  as 
the  highest  aim,  but  should  be  subordinated  to  that  which  is 
the  truly  highest  aim.  By  this  subordination  it  is  lifted  up, 
(tollere,)  already  in  the  contracted  sphere  of  time  becomes  lim- 
itless and  eternal,  and  is  thus  lifted  up  too  in  such  sense  as  to 
be  above  all  danger,  (conservare ;)  cf.  with  (puld^et  the  ^cooyoveTv^ 
Luke  xvii.  33.  The  Saviour  was  about  to  give  up  his  mortal 
life  to  promote  the  highest  aim,  and  in  this  his  Disciples  are 
to  follow  him,  and  like  him  they  shall  be  partakers  in  that 
"glory,"  Joca<T//6c,  (xvii.  21-24.)     On  ej///,  cf.  vii.  34. 

V.  27,  28.  But  the  path  to  the  rising  lies  through  the  set- 
ting, in  the  presence  of  which,  considered  in  its  isolation,  the 
natural  life  is  stricken  with  fear.  We  have  in  this  struggle  of 
choice,  the  prelude  of  the  struggle  in  Gethsemane,  (Beugel.) 
The  two  petitions,  between  which  the  choice  is  suspended,  in 
expressing  the  two  correspondent  propositions,  commence 
each  with  the  address,  "  Father,"  -drsf).  The  first  is  withdrawn 
—why?  Am  -o'jzo  refers  to  something  present  in  the  Saviour's 
thoughts,  but  under  the  emotion  of  his  soul  not  expressed  in 
language — it  is,  as  most  think,  the  consummation  of  the  divine 
decree  of  atonement,  through  his  passion.  According  to  the 
older  expositors,  (Luther,  also,)  awaov — xcvj-criz  is  not  connected 
with  the  question  xi  zizco^  but  forms  an  independent  question ; 
this  opinion  has  been  renewed  by  De  TVette,  and  Liicke  agrees 
with  him.  But  after  the  expression  of  a  doubt  even  in  the 
t:  tiTzco,  as  to  what  prayer  should  be  offered,  a  positive  petition 
could  only  accord  w^ith  the  laws  of  mental  action,  if  it  pre- 
sented itself  as  the  result  of  a  decision;  but  this  could  not  be 
the  result  here,  for  the  prayer  is  at  once  again  corrected.  "We 
decidedly,  therefore,  prefer  the  other  view,  (Theophylact,  Gro- 
tius,  Le  Clerc,  Kling,  Schweizer.)  Chrysostom  already  exhib- 
its the  logical  relations  of  the  propositions  thus:  ob  Xiyo), 
d-dlXa^6v  fit  ix  t.  wfta^  twjtt^^  'dXXd  zi. ;  Tzdzsp,  (io^aaou  aou  zb  ovofia. 
hahoc  z.  zapayr^:;  zo'jzo  dva-j"/a^o'j(T7^^  Xiyzcv,  zb  Ivavzcov  Xiyco^ 
do^aaov  aou  z.  ouofia.  ("  I  do  not  say,  Save  me  from  this  hour, 
but  I  say.  Father,  glorify  thy  name.  Though  agitation  should 
force  the  utterance  of  the  former,  I  say  the  reverse,  Glorify  thy 
name.") 


296  CiiAP.  Xn.— V.  20-30. 

V.  28-30.  The  voice  of  God  declares  that  the  sublime 
prayer,  which  had  resulted  from  so  great  a  conflict,  is  answered. 
(On  the  double  xai,  cf.  what  is  said  on  vi.  36.)  Three  grada- 
tions in  the  way  in  which  it  was  understood  are  noted :  some 
regarded  it  as  a  natural  phenomenon,  some  thought  they  heard 
a  being  of  a  higher  sphere  speaking,  and  others  understood 
the  words  that  were  uttered.  If  we  direct  our  attention,  first 
of  all,  to  the  purport  of  the  heavenly  voice,  we  must  explain 
do^dao)  with  immediate  reference  to  verses  24  and  32 ;  if 
ido^daa  be  regarded  as  strictly  con-esponding  with  this  Future, 
it  concerns  the  recognition  of  Christ,  which  had  been  brought 
about  up  to  this  time,  (xvii.  10.)  The  different  apprehensions 
of  the  voice  were  accounted  for  by  the  earlier  expositors,  on 
the  supposition  that  it  sounded  immediately  over  Christ,  and 
was  consequentl}^  regarded  by  those  who  stood  at  some  dis- 
tance as  only  a  heavenly  language  without  words,  and  by  those 
very  remote,  as  a  noise  like  thunder — or  they  fell  back  upon 
the  tone  of  mind,  in  virtue  of  which  the  "carnal,"  aapxcxoi, 
must  speedily  have  lost  an  accurate  impression  of  what  they 
heard,  (Chiysostom,  Ammonius.)  How  are  we  to  understand, 
in  general,  the  voices  from  heaven,  not  merely  in  the  N"ow 
Testament,  (Acts  ix.  7,  xxii.  7,  x.  13, 15,)  but  in  Josephus  also, 
(Antiq.  xiii.  3,  do  bello  jud.  vii.  12,)  and  in  the  early  Christian 
Church,  (Ep.  de  Martyrio  Polyc.  c.  9,)  and  the  "tolle,  lege," 
(take,  read,)  when  Augustine  was  converted  ?  It  is  well  known 
that  vivid  bodily  sensations,  and  spiritual  feelings  also,  under 
strong  excitement,  shape  themselves,  in  the  fancy,  to  forms 
which  create  sensuous  impressions,  to  something  that  is  heard 
or  seen,  see  above  on  i.  32,  33.  If  that  in  which  they  originate 
be  merely  subjective,  they  form  subjective  visions,  or  (to  give 
tbem  their  medical  designation,)  hallucinations;  if  that  which 
they  contain  is  objectively  true,  they  are  then  objective 
visions.  The  vision  here  spoken  of  cannot  have  been  subject- 
ive, as  the  multitude,  who  were  indifferent,  also  perceived 
something.  A  sound  like  thunder  must  be  presupposed,  but 
according  to  the  view  of  Liicke,  De  Wette,  the  distinct  lan- 
guage which  was  heard  pertains  to  the  internal  vision.  The 
former  commentator  says — the  voice  of  the  thunder  is  a  word 
of  God,  first  of  all,  for  Christ  only ;  others,  whose  attention  had 


Desire  of  Gentiles  to  see  Jesus.  297 

been  arrested  by  the  prayer,  gave  to  the  outward  sound  a  higher 
significance,  but  it  spoke  nothing  definite  to  them ;  the  unsus- 
ceptible perceived  only  the  physical  phenomenon.  It  has  been 
usual  since  Grotius,  to  appeal  at  the  same  time  to  a  notion 
common  among  the  Rabbins,  that  of  the  Bath-kol,  Sip~n3,  a 
phrase  which  moans,  Daughter  of  the  Voice,  that  is,  an  internal 
second  voice,  evolving  itself  from  an  outward  sound,  and  among 
others,  according  to  Paulus,  Liieke,  De  Wette,  thunder  was 
one  of  these  outward  sounds/  The  interests  of  religion  do  not 
demand  that  this  view  should  be  absolutely  rejected,  for  the  coin- 
cidence of  natural  phenomena  with  Christ's  word,  and  the  frame 
of  mind  excited  by  them  in  the  Disciples,  could  still  not  be 
regarded  as  mere  accident.  But  if,  as  Liieke  contends,  Jesus 
alone  gave  that  meaning  to  the  natural  phenomenon,  are  we  to 
suppose  that  he  afterward  explained  it  to  his  Disciples  ?  K 
this  were  the  case,  then  the  Disciples  would  here  be  compre- 
hended under  the  "people,"  6-)[lo!;,  and  the  "others,"  dXXoc. 
"We  adhere,  therefore,  to  the  opinion,  that  an  outward  sound 
was  heard,  wliich,  by  divine  influence,  shaped  itself  in  the 
minds  of  the  susceptible  to  the  words  mentioned,  but  in  the 
less  susceptible,  only  produced  the.  impression  that  something 
had  been  uttered,  (Neander,  Kliug,  Olshausen.)  That  an  actual 
occurrence,  and  not  a  mere  fiction  of  the  narrator  is  detailed,  is 
clear,  when  we  consider  that  the  purposes  of  a  writer  of  that 
sort  would  have  been  better  subserved  by  inventing  a  heavenly 
voice,  which  all  understood,  and  by  which  all  were  impressed. 
The  comparison  of  Acts  ix.  7,  with  xxii.  9,  shows  also,  that  the 
attendants  of  Paul  heard  a  voice,  whose  loords  Paul  alone  under- 
stood.— Finally,  in  v.  30,  the  Redeemer  declares  that  he  needed 
not  this  voice  of  God  for  his  own  exaltation. 


1  On  the  other  hand,  it  has  been  observed  by  me,  that  in  none  of  the  Tarious  pas- 
sages in  Vitringa,  Observat.  Sucr.,  Meuschen,  N.  T.  ex  talmude  ill.  (here  of.  the 
Dissertation  by  Danz,  de  inaugurat.  Christi,  p.  445,  seq.)  Buxtorf,  lex.  talni.  s.  h.  v., 
is  the  term  applied  to  thunder  or  any  natural  phenomenon,  of  which  no  more  than 
an  interpretation  could  be  given,  but  is  always  applied  to  an  actual  voice  of  God  or 
men.  LCicke  and  De  Wette  controvert  this,  but  with  a  citation,  not  to  the  purpose, 
from  Lightfoot  on  M:itt.  iii.  17,  for  Lightfoot  there  merely  explains  as  thunder,  (toni- 
tru, )  the  Bnth-kol  ^O^ns  in  dispute,  which  may  be  an  actual  voice.  Lubkert: 
"  Etwas  uber  Bath-kol,"  in  the  Stud.  u.  Kritiken,  1335,  iii.  H.  has  collected  a  large 
number  of  passages,  which  confirm  our  view ;  he  doubts,  moreover,  whether  that 
conception  was  formed  before  the  time  of  Christ.  Neander,  also,  1.  c.  p.  019,  seq. 
agrees  with  our  view. 


298  Chap.  XIL  — v.  31-41. 

Y.  31-33.  In  sublime  anticipation,  the  Saviour  already 
beholds  the  realization  of  the  divine  promise.  The  non-mes- 
sianic world,  that  is,  "this  world,"  6  x6a[j.o^  outo^,  is  powerless 
against  his  kingdom  ;  the  Ruler  of  it  is  overcome ;  all,^  that  is, 
both  Gentiles  and  Jews,  (Chrysostom,  Calvin,)  are  exalted  to  be 
citizens  of  the  Empire ;  analogous  is  the  triumphant  exclama- 
tion, Luke  X.  18.  Olshausen  employs  this  in  connection  with 
Rev.  xii.  11,  12,  to  attach  to  the  words  "shall  be  cast  out," 
h^Xrj&Tjaezac  igco,  the  force,  "from  heaven,"  but  if  that  had 
been  meant,  either  heaven  would  be  mentioned,  or  this  repre- 
sentation must  be  a  perfectly  well  known  one.  ''E^co  may 
have  x6a/io<;  supplied,  "cast  out  of  the  world,"  but  it  is  better 
to  refer  it  to  the  6  dp^cop,  supplying  i^  o.f)^ij,  "  cast  out  of  his 
dominion,"  (Euthymius,  Grotius.)  "If  I  be  lifted  up  from  the 
earth,"  utpoD&oJ  ix  tyj^  yrj(;,  leads  immediately  to  that  to  which 
V.  34,  35,  point,  to  his  removal  from  the  world,  or  more  defi- 
nitely, to  his  glorification  in  heaven,  (Luther,  in  Walch,  viii.  p. 
38  ;)  as,  however,  in  iii.  14,  and  in  viii.  28,  the  same  expression 
denotes  the  crucifixion,  and  as  v.  24,  to  which  this  probably. 
glances  back,  speaks  of  the  glorification  through  suffering,  we 
mast  here,  with  Erasmus,  Beza,  Heumann,  suppose  a  two-fold 
signification,  of  which  the  Evangelist,  v.  33,  makes  use,  (xviii. 
32.)  The  drawing  unto  him  may,  according  to  vi.  44,  be  simply 
the  reception  into  communion ;  if  there  be,  however,  a  back- 
ward glance  to  v.  26,  it  means  communion  with  the  Saviour  in 
his  exaltation. 

V.  34.  The  people  lay  hold  only  on  the  idea  of  Christ's 
removal  from  the  world,  his  words,  therefore,  seem  to  them  in 
conflict  with  Isa.  ix.  7,  Dan.  vii.  14,  and  like  passages.  "  Wo 
have  heard,"  y^xo'jaafjLsu,  as  they  were  acquainted  with  the  Old 
Testament,  which  is  meant  here  by  "the  law,"  uofwc,  only  by 
hearing  it  read,  (Matt.  v.  21.)  The  expression,  "  Son  of  man,"  yf oc 
TOO  du&pcoTiou,  and  "must,"  osT,  had  not  been  used  by  Christ,  v. 
32 ;  it  appears  that  the  Evangelist  has  given  this  reply  with  pre- 
ciseness,  but  had  not  on  the  other  hand  quoted  the  previous 
words  of  Christ  with  preciseness.    From  their  language.  Who  is 

1  If  there  be  a  hesitation  in  conceding  thnt  ttllvtbc  has  referonce  to  Gentiles  and 
Jews,  (Rom.  xi.  32,  John  x.  1(5,)  still  an  absolute  universality  does  not  necessarily 
follow,  for  it  must  always  be  firmly  held,  that  only  the  susceptible  are  intended,  cf. 
vi.  45  with  44. 


Close  of  the  Public  Labors  of  our  Lord.  299 

this  Sou  of  man  ?  rj'c — av&pwitoo,  may  be  infeiTcd  that  this 
predicate  was  uot  a  current  designatiou  of  the  Messiah,  see 
on  i.  52. 

V.  35,  36.  Without  giving  a  direct  answer  to  the  question, 
which  was  not  indeed  necessary,  as  the  beginning  of  v.  34 
shows  that  tliey  were  able  to  furnish  it  themselves,  the  Saviour 
exhorts  them  to  make  a  faithful  use  of  his  presence,  (viii.  21.) 
"Darkness,"  nxozca,  the  period  when  the  Salvation  is  no  longer 
personally  among  them — the  result  of  which  is  that  the  foot- 
step is  no  longer  secure.  "  Children  of  light,"  ohc  fioTo^,  used 
also,  Luke  xvi.  8,  a  Hebraistic  designation  of  the  relation  of 
dependence,  as  the  child  is  dependent  on  the  mother.  "  Did 
hide  himself  from  them,"  Ixpu^rj  0.71  abxwv,  is  meant  to  desig- 
nate only  his  withdrawal  from  public  labors. 

Close  of  the  Public  Labors  of  our  Lord.  —  v.  37-50. 

V.  37-41.  The  reader  should  recall  what  was  observed  in 
.the  Introduction  to  the  Gospel,  p.  17,  in  regard  to  the  leading 
pui'pose  of  the  Evangelist.  The  miracles  would  exercise  the 
most  striking  power  in  convincing  men,  (x.  38.)  Li  such 
appeals  to  the  prophetic  prediction  of  the  people,  as  for  exam- 
ple in  Matt.  xiii.  14,  xxvi.  24,  John  xvii.  12,  Rom.  xi.  8,  &c., 
lies  apparently  the  doctrine  of  predestination.  But  in  regard 
to  this,  it  must  be  borne  in  mind,  that  according  to  the  biblical 
view,  as  well  as  by  the  acknowledgment  of  philosophy,  a  divine 
decree  is  consummated  in  evil  also,  without  thereby  destroying 
human  accountability,^  (Matt,  xviii.  7,  Acts  iv.  27,  28.)  Not 
incorrectly  in  regard  to  the  aim  of  such  appeals  to  prophecy, 
De  Wette  says,  "  that  thereby  merely  a  lowly  submission  to 
divine  rule  is  denoted;"  still  more  correctly  we  may  say:  inas- 
much as  the  prophesying  verifies  the  divine  ujpcanivov,  (deter- 
mination,) (cf.  Luke  xxii.  22,  and  Matt.  xxvi.  24,)  the  looking  at 
it  exalts  faith  above  the  events  which  seem  destructive  to  the 
divine  plan  of  the  world.     Thus  John  tranquilizes  himself  and 

1  For  it  is  true,  as  Chrysostom  here  remarks :  oi'6h  yup  ineidf^  elirev  'Haatac,  ovk 
imaTevov,u/.?J  lireL^fj  ovk  t/ie?J.ov  Triareveiv,  did  tovto  eIttev  'Haaia^.  "  For  it  was  not 
because  Isaiah  said  so,  that  they  did  not  believe,  but  because  they  would  not  believe 
leaiah  said  this." 


300  Chap.  XH.— v.  42-50. 

his  readers,  v.  37,  38,  by  showing  that  even  the  unbelief  of  the 
people  of  God  in  the  promised  one  was  ordered  in  the  divine 
plan  of  the  world,  and  therefore  what  is  in  Isaiah  liii.  1,  had 
been  predicted.  In  v.  39  it  is  continued:  not  only  was  this 
hardening  foreseen  and  ordained,  but  it  also  occurred  under 
divine  causality,  ore  goes  back  to  did  touto.  The  way  of  appre- 
hending it  adopted  by  Luther,  Grotius,  De  Wette,  is  syntacti- 
cally different,  they  referring  did  touto  to  what  precedes,  so 
that  oTi  introduces  a  new  ground :  "  Because  that  divine  proph- 
ecy must  be  fulfilled,  they  could  not  believe,  for — ."  De  Wette 
observes  that  did  touto  occurs  elsewhere,  with  a  reference  to 
what  precedes,  yet  still  when  there  is  a  new  ground,  an  oti  is 
added,  (Matt.  xxiv.  44.)  The  citation  from  Isaiah  vi.  10  is  not 
exact,  inasmuch  as  that  which  God  there  enjoins  on  the  prophet 
is  here  expressed  in  the  third  person  as  an  act  of  God,  and  only 
at  the  close  does  the  first  person  again  appear.  As  the  caus- 
ality of  the  hardening,  God  naturally  can  only  be  designated  in 
a  relative  manner,  d.(popixrjTix(o^  and  daaoTixoic. ;  see  as  regards  the 
doctrinal  aspect,  Tholuck's  Comm.  on  Rom.  i.  24,  xi.  7,  seq. — 
The  application  of  the  passage  from  the  Old  Testament  to  the 
case  before  us,  will  be  justified  by  but  a  single  observation, 
[saiah  beheld  the  db^a,  the  glory  of  God ;  in  the  theophanies 
of  the  Old  Testament,  Jehovah  unveiled  himself  to  men  through 
the  Logos  alone,  (cf.  the  introduction  to  ch.  i.  p.  58,  seq.)  that 
glory  then,  nn^,  was  consequently  the  glory  of  the  Logos,  and 
as  the  words  "  spake  of  him,"  ilak-qaz  zepc  aoToo,  allude  to  Isa. 
vi.  8,  seq.  the  judicial  hardening  is  also  to  be  traced  to  the 
Logos.  According  to  1  Cor.  x.  4,  also,  the  revelations  under 
the  old  covenant  proceeded  from  the  Logos. 

v.  42-43.  This  limitation  shows  that  the  Evangelist  was  not 
interested,  as  has  recently  been  urged  as  a  reproach  against 
him,  in  exaggerating  the  unbelief  of  the  Jews.  Referring  to 
Jesus'  own  words,  chap.  v.  44,  John  assigns  a  genuinely  prag- 
matic reason  why  there  was  a  defect  of  open  confessors  of 
Christ.  The  rJTrep,  originally  poetical,  passed  at  a  later  period 
into  the  xoiuij,  the  common  usage. 

V.  44-50.  The  older  interpreters  found  in  these  words  a 
resumption  of  the  public  discourses  of  Jesus ;  Chrysostom, 
indeed,  thinks  that  the  af^fitia  (v.  37,)  refers  to  miracles  which 


Close  of  the  Public  Labors  of  our  Lord.  301 

occurred  in  the  interval,  but  are  not  mentioned.  As,  however, 
what  follows,  in  great  part  expresses  only  reminiscences  of 
earlier  discourses,  most  writers  since  Michrelis,  Morus,  (Bengel 
also,)  have  regarded  what  follows  as  recapitulation,  and  have 
taken  the  aorists  ipyaips,  elrre,  as  pluperfects.  After  Strauss,  how- 
ever, had  objected,  that  "to  give  this  retrospective  signification 
there  ought  to  be  a  corresponding  indication  in  the  words  them- 
selves, or  in  the  context,"  (i.  p.  683,  Eng.  Trans,  ii.  171,)  De 
Wette  also  supposes  that  "  the  recollection  of  the  contents  of 
Jesus'  discourses  shaped  itself  under  the  hand  of  the  Evange- 
list to  an  actual  discourse."  On  the  other  hand,  Schweizer,  1. 
c.  p.  18,  justly  lays  weight  on  the  fact,  that  in  contrast  with  the 
invariable  habit  of  the  Evangelist,  a  discourse  of  the  Saviour 
would  here  be  presented  without  any  thing  specific  in  regard 
to  the  circumstances  under  which  it  was  delivered,  which  is  so 
much  the  less  admissible,  "  as  a  position  of  things  previously 
existing  had  been  expressly  specified  as  terminated."  Not  the 
slightest  difliculty  can  exist  about  taking  the  aorist  as  pluper- 
fect, especially  in  recapitulating,  yet  the  aorists  may  unhesita- 
tingly also  be  regarded  as  narrative ;  it  is  in  fact  acknowledged 
that  the  Greeks,  to  use  the  language  of  Kiihner,  (ii.  p.  76,) 
"  employ  the  aorist  when  they  speak  of  some  appearance  fre- 
quently  observed  in  time  past." — On  v.  44,  cf.  x.  38,  xiii.  20 ;  on 
V.  45,  cf  xiv.  9  ;  on  v.  46,  cf.  viii.  12,  xii.  35-37 ;  on  v.  47  and 
48,  cf.  iii.  17  and  18 ;  on  v.  49,  cf.  vii.  16-18 ;  on  v.  50,  cf. 
viii.  30. 


27 


CHAPTER  XIII. 


Jesus  washes  his  Disciples'  feet,  the  last  token  of 
LOVE. — V.  1-20. 

V.  1.  This  repast  of  the  Lord  with  his  Disciples  is  the  last, 
for  immediately  after  the  discourses  which  follow  it  he  left  the 
city.  Now  the  Evangelist  seems  to  say  in  these  words,  that 
the  token  of  love  given  by  the  Saviour,  the  washing  of  his 
Disciples'  feet,  took  place  hefore  the  feast.  The  iopvi^,  the 
Passover,  commenced  on  the  fourteenth  of  Nisan,  at  six  o'clock 
in  the  evening,  with  the  eating  of  the  Passover ;  it  would  seem, 
therefore,  that  the  meal  here  described  took  place  on  the  thir- 
teenth of  that  month,  in  the  evening.  According  to  the 
synoptical  Gospels,  however,  our  Lord  partook  of  the  Passover 
with  his  Disciples  on  the  same  day  with  the  Jews,  (Matt.  xxvi. 
17,  Mark  xiv.  12,  Luke  xxii.  7.)  This  difference  is  one  of  the 
most  litigated  questions  in  the  criticism  of  the  Gospels.  Yet 
more  unequivocally  than  in  the  passage  before  us,  John  desig- 
nates the  day  on  which  the  Passover  should  have  been  eaten,  as 
that  on  which  Christ  was  crucified,  ch.  xviii.  28,  xix.  14,  31. 
The  contrary  date  fixed  by  the  Synoptists,  which  would  make 
the  crucifixion  fall  on  the  fifteenth  of  Nisan,  that  is,  on  the 
first  day  of  the  feast,  is  encumbered  with  great  difiiculties, 
which  lie  in  the  very  nature  of  the  case :  would  Jesus,  contrary 
to  the  law,  have  left  the  city  on  the  night  of  the  Passover? 
could  the  Sanhedrim  have  undertaken  on  that  holy  day  to 
arrest,  arraign,  give  a  hearing  to  and  sentence  him  ?  Is  there 
not  throughout,  merely  the  exhibition  of  a  fear  of  desecrating 
the  following  Sabbath  ?  (xix.  31.)  All  the  four  accounts  concur 
in  the  statement,  that  the  Eedeemer  was  crucified  on  Friday, 

(302) 


Jesus  washes  his  Disciples'  feet.  803 

and  lay  in  the  grave  on  the  Sabbath,  (Saturday,)  but  the  dif- 
ference is  this,  that  according  to  John  this  Friday  seems  to 
have  been  the  fourteenth  of  Nisan,  on  the  evening  of  which 
the  Passover  was  eaten,  but  according  to  the  Synoptists,  on  the 
contrary,  seems  to  have  been  the  fifteenth,  consequently  the 
first  day  of  the  feast.  "We  regard  it  as  most  in  keeping  with 
a  scientific  love  of  truth,  to  confess  at  once  that  the  union  of 
the  two  accounts  is  encumbered  with  very  great  difliculties. 
A  full  statement  of  these  difficulties  is  the  less  likely  to  prove 
detrimental  to  the  faith,  since,  even  granting  that  theological  or 
historical  reasons  make  a  contradiction  in  this  matter  a  thing 
not  to  be  imagined,  such  a  statement  only  gives  an  impulse  to 
a  more  radical  investigation.  The  larger  portion  of  the  mod- 
ern critics  have  been  led  by  an  examination  of  this  subject  to 
the  ultimate  result,  that  there  must  be  a  mistake  on  one  or 
other  side,  either  on  the  part  of  John  or  on  that  of  the  first 
three  Evangelists ;  while  Bretschneider,  in  his  Probubilia,  and 
"Weisse,  charge  it  on  John,  by  far  the  larger  part,  XJsteri,  De 
Wette,  Theile,  Lucke,  Neander,  find  the  mistake  in  the  first 
three  Gospels ;  Strauss,  however,  winds  up  with  the  observation, 
that  no  decision  is  yet  to  be  hazarded  as  to  which  statement  is 
the  correct  one,  (4th  ed.  p.  400,  Eug.  tr.  iii.  152.)  Should  we 
now  disregard  every  thing  that  antiquity  has  told  us  of  the 
authors  of  the  first  three  Gospels,  and  regard  these  Gospels 
merely  as  a  product  which  originated  toward  the  close  of  the 
first  century,  from  a  wavering  popular  tradition,  then  certainly 
the  statement  as  regards  the  time  of  the  Last  Supper  of  Christ 
has  flowed  from  a  troubled  source.  If,  however,  so  arbitrary  a 
procedure  must  be  styled  uncritical  in  the  highest  degree,  if 
but  this  be  fixed,  that  the  Greek  of  Matthew  is  in  harmony 
in  the  main  points  with  its  Aramaic  original,  that  we  are  to 
regard  Luke,  the  friend  of  Paul,  as  the  author  of  the  third 
Gospel,  then  to  charge  upon  these  first  Evangelists  an  eiTor  in 
date  is  attended  with  difficulties  not  less  serious  than  those 
connected  with  the  resolution  of  the  difterence  mentioned. 

Beginning  with  the  very  year  of  our  Lord's  death,  his  last 
love  feast,  together  with  the  Supper  which  was  linked  with  it, 
was  repeated  by  his  Disciples.  Will  it  be  maintained  that  at 
the  time  of  this  earliest  repetition  a  chronological  error  had 


304  Chap.  Xm.  — v.  1. 

crept  in  ?    Is  there  not  an  unbroken  chain  of  tradition  founded 
in  facts,  according  to  which,  Mark  must  have  known  when 
Peter  commemorated  the  death  of  Christ,  Luke  must  have 
known  when  Paul,  Polycarp  must  have  known  when  Jolm  did 
so?     Irenseus,  the  pupil  of  Polycarp,  mentions  also,  that  in 
the  controversies  regarding  the  Easter  festival,  Polycarp  had 
appealed  to  the  fact  that  the  Apostle  had  observed  Easter  on  the 
same  day  as  the  Jeivs,  (Eusebius,  1.  v.  c.  24 ;)  Polycrates,  also, 
Bishop  of  Ephesus,  in  the  middle  of  the  second  century,  (quoted 
in  the  same  passage  in  Eusebius,)  in  his  letter  on  the  Easter 
festival,  appeals  to  seven  kinsmen  of  his,  who  were  bishops 
before  him,  whose  tradition  in  regard  to  Easter  he  followed, 
and  declares  that  John  observed  the  same  usage  as  regarded 
Easter.^     There  is  yet  another  point  of  view  in  which  these  last 
witnesses  are  to  be  considered.     If  John  celebrated  the  Supper 
at  the  same  time  with  the  Jews,  can  that  conception  of  the 
passages  in  his  Gospel  be  correct,  according  to  which  Christ  was 
crucified  on  the  day  on  which  the  Passover  was  observed  ?     So 
improbable  is  this,  that  the  most  recent  criticism,  (Schwegler's) 
apprehending  the  passages  in  John  in  this  way,  supposes  that 
the  genuineness  of  the  Gospel  itself  must  be  called  into  doubt. 
"What,  however,  can  be  opposed  to  these  objections  ?     Shall  it  be 
said :  This  last  meal  on  the  thirteenth  of  Nisan  must  have  been 
more  important  to  the  Disciples  than  the  Passover  itself;  that 
perhaps  on  the  day  of  our  Lord's  crucifixion  they  had  tasted 
nothing ;  that  perhaps  at  a  later  period  the  Passover  was  united 
with  the  Supper,  which  was  instituted  at  that  meal ;  that  Matthew 
consequently,  when  some  twenty  years  later  he  wrote  his  Gospel, 
may  have  mistaken  one  for  the  other?  (Theile  "  on  the  time  of 
Christ's  Last  Supper,"  in  Winer,  Neuem  Krit.  Journ.  ii.  p. 
171.)     Shall  we  add,  with  Liicke,  3d  ed.  p.  733 :  "  As  regards 
too,  the  day  of  the  Saviour's  death,  the  tradition  was,  per- 
haps, satisfied  with  settling  this,  that  Jesus  had  been  crucified  * 
on  the  Tzapaaxzurj  (the  preparation)  of  the  feast.     The  day  of 
the  resurrection  was  alone  more  accurately  designated.    From 

1  This  passage  contains  as  for  the  rest,  some  obscure  places;  cf.  Neander,  1.  c.  p. 
636,  (Eng.  tr.  p.  385.) 

2  la  the  Talmud, also,  it  is  affirmed  that  Jesus,  nD3"3";.y3  "on  the  day  before 
the  Passover,"  was  «/oneiand  hung;  (!)  Iken,  diss.  ii.  p.  295.  (Eisenmenger,  Jud. 
Entdeok,  1.  i.  179.     Tr.) 


Jesus  washes  nis  Disciples'  feet.  305 

defect  of  chronological  interest  in  an  event  ■waich  presented 
features  of  so  much  greater  moment,  which  did  not  depend  on 
the  chronology,  the  absence  of  some  definiteness  was  not  at 
Hvat  felt,  and  the  indeiinite  was  propagated."  If  we  had  merely 
statonents  to  do  ^^^th,  this  might  perhaps  answer,  but  is  there 
not  a  continuous  train  of  tradition  resting  on  facts  ?  Do  not 
Polycai-p  and  Polycrates  appeal  to  facts  of  their  own  time? 
And  what  shall  we  say  of  the  fact  that  John  himself  kept 
Easter  with  the  Jews  ?  Is  it  sufficient,  with  Liicke,  to  see  in 
this  a  mere  accommodation  to  the  usage  of  the  Churches  in 
Asia  Minor,  which  usage  arose  independently  of  John  ?  The 
matter  would  certainly  be  clearer,  if  we  could  suppose  with 
Xeauder:  (p.  G36,  Eug.  tr.  385,)  "That  the  Jewish  Christians 
kept  up  the  Jewish  usage  of  the  Passover,  giving  it,  however, 
a  Christian  import ;  while  the  congregations  of  purely  Gentile 
converts  originally  kept  no  festivals  at  all."  From  what  time, 
however,  is  to  be  dated  the  error  which  originated  in  that  usage, 
the  error,  that  Christ,  on  that  evening,  partook  of  the  Paschal 
Supper  ^^'ith  his  Disciples  ?  According  to  Neander,  Liicke, 
and  even  Usteri,  (Comment,  p.  19,)  Paul  was  aware  of  the  cor- 
rect view,  and  intimates  it  when  (1  Cor.  xi.  23,)  he  does  not 
say,  "on  the  night  of  the  Passover,"  but  "the  same  night  in 
which  Christ  was  betrayed;"  and  when  in  1  Cor.  v.  7,  he 
opposes  to  the  Jewish  Passover  the  offering  of  Christ — conse- 
quently, the  spiritual  Passover,  as  sacrificed  at  the  same  time 
with  the  Jewish  Paschal  lamb.  Now  it  is  confessed  that  precisely 
in  the  account  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  Paul  stands  in  connection 
with  Luke,  consequently  Luke  at  least  cannot  have  gone 
amiss.  We  put  the  general  question :  Would  any  of  the 
Apostles  who  had  been  in  the  scenes  of  those  great  days,  be  at 
all  likely  to  forget  which  had  been  the  day  of  crucifixion  ;  and 
if  this  could  not  be,  could  a  Paul,  a  Luke,  a  Mark,  be  mistaken 
— to  say  nothing  of  Matthew? 

Under  an  improbability  so  great,  of  any  mistake  having  been 
made,  we  feel  absolutely  obliged  to  essay  a  reconciliation.  The 
Christians  of  the  earliest  period  were  acquainted  with  a  method 
of  doing  so  ;  Polycrates,  in  the  passage  cited,  appeals  to  the 
Gospels  as  harmonizing  with  the  practice  observed  by  John  in 
regard  to  the  Easter  festival;  and  ApoUinaris,  m  the  fourth  cen- 

27* 


306  Chap.  XIH.— v.  1. 

tiiiy,  in  the  Fragment  Chronic,  pasch.  p.  6,  where  he  combats 
the  practice  of  the  Christians  of  Asia  Minor,  who  celebrated 
Easter  at  the  same  time  with  the  Jews,  and  placed  the  day 
of  our  Lord's  death  upon  the  fifteenth  of  Nisan,  observes  by 
way  of  reproach,  that  according  to  their  idea  the  Evangelists 
would  appear  to  have  fallen  into  a  contradiction.  Either  a 
false  interpretation  is  put  upon  the  first  Gospels,  when  accord- 
ing to  them  we  transfer  the  last  Supper  to  the  fourteenth  of 
Nisan,  or  upon  John,  when  we  put  it,  according  to  him, 
upon  the  thirteenth.  The  former  was,  until  in  the  last 
centur}^,  the  most  general  view,  and  the  oldest  and  most 
common  attempt  at  producing  a  harmony,  was  the  suppo- 
sition, that  the  Redeemer  himself  had  anticipated  the  eating 
of  the  Passover,  thus  Tertullian,  the  auctor  queest.  in  N.  T. 
(Pseudo-Augustine,)  Clement,  Origen,  Chrysostom,^  Apolli- 
naris,  Euthymius,  those  numerous  Greek  theologians  who  de- 
fended the  Greek  usage  of  leavened  bread  in  the  Lord's  Supper, 
(see  Ilsteri,  1.  c.  p.  37,)  various  members  also  of  the  Church  of 
Rome,  as  Lamy,  Calmet ;  of  the  Protestant  theologians,  Cap- 
pellus,  Lampe,  Deyling,  Gude,  (in  his  very  learned  treatise, 
Demonstratio  quod  Chr.  in  ccena  sua  azaupcoa'inco  agnum 
paschalem  non  comederit,  "  Demonstration  that  Christ  did  not 
eat  the  Paschal  lamb  at  his  last  Supper,"  Lips.,  1742,  2d  ed.) 
Ernesti,  Kuinol.  The  mere  extent  to  which  this  particular 
manner  of  reconciliation  has  been  adopted,  makes  it  proper  to 
examine  it;  it  has  again  found  in  the  learned  Movers  a  de- 
fender,' (in  the  Zeitschr.  f.  Phil.  u.  kathol.  Theolog.  1833,  H.  7 
and  8.)  In  relation  to  the  ground  of  an  anticipation  of  the 
Passover  on  the  part  of  the  Redeemer,  this  most  recent  Apolo- 
gist adopts  the  viev?-  already  extensively  received  in  the  Greek 
Church,  (see  XJsteri,)  that  in  the  Lord's  Supper,  which  was  united 

1  He  is  uncertain;  on  chap,  xviii.  28,  be  says:  ^roi.  ovv  to  izdaxa.  ttjv  iopr^v 
irdaav  Xeyei.'  t)  otl  tote  ewolovv  to  waaxa,  avTo^  6t  npb  fiiug  avTo  napeduTze, 
TTjpuv  TTJv  lavTov  afpajTjv  Ty  TrapaaicEvy,  ote  koI  to  Tca2.atbv  kyivETO  to  Ttdaxa.  "  Either 
he  calls  the  ivhole  feast  the  Passover,  or  they  then  kept  the  Passover;  but  he  (Christ) 
observed  it  the  day  before,  reserving  the  sacrifice  of  himself  for  the  parasceue, 
(preparation,)  on  which  day  formerly  the  Passover  was  kept."  On  Matt.  xxvi.  he 
adopts  the  idea  of  a  delay  of  the  feast  on  the  part  of  the  Jews. 

2  This  treatise,  although  even  in  other  respects  not  without  importance,  has  been 
overlooked  in  almost  all  the  recent  works,  even  by  Liicke,  p.  717.  Movers  is  cen- 
surable for  presenting  his  exposition  as  a  novel  one  without  mentioning  Grotius,  Dey- 
ling. (obss.  sacrse,  i.  p.  277,  seq. )  and  others. 


Jesus  washes  his  Disciples'  feet.  307 

with  the  Passover,  it  was  designed  to  give  the  spiritual  antitype 
to  the  symbolical  Paschal  Supper,  as  the  Redeemer,  at  the 
very  hour  at  which  the  typical  Paschal  lamb  was  slain  in  the 
temple,  offered  himself  as  the  true  Paschal  lamb.  The  circum- 
stance, that  the  Evangelists  call  the  day  when  the  Passover  was 
made  ready,  the  first  day  of  unleavened  bread,^  (Matt.  xxvi.  17, 
Mark  xiv.  12,)  he,  as  Grotius  had  already  done,  obviates  thus, 
that  we  are  not  to  suppose  that  thereby  is  meant  the  hours  of 
the  day  of  the  fourteenth  of  Msan,  on  the  evening  of  which  it 
^vas  usual  to  slay  the  Passover,  but  that  the  eventide  of  the  thir- 
teenth is  meant,  from  which  it  was  already  usual  to  compute  the 
fourteenth,  to  which  Luke  also  (xxii.  7,)  alludes  by  using  riXd-e, 
whereby  the  end  of  the  thirteenth  of  Nisan  is  designated  as  the 
period  when  the  command  was  given.  In  Matt.  xxvi.  18,  our 
Lord,  by  using  the  words,  "my  time  is  at  hand,"  6  xacpo^  fioo 
^YX'j^  i(TTi,  pointed  "  clearly"  to  his  intention  of  keeping  the  Pass- 
over at  an  extraordinary  time.*  But  it  may  be  objected,  if  our 
Lord  had  arranged  for  the  Supper  at  the  approach  of  the  dusk  of 
evening,  could  it  have  been  got  ready  the  same  evening  ?  But, 
saA's  the  Apologist,  let  it  be  noted :  The  large  dining-room  was 
already  prepared  for  the  meal,  (Mark  xiv.  15,)  and  that  un- 
known friend  to  whom  Jesus  sent  the  Disciples,  appears  to  have 
had  every  thing  requisite  already  in  readiness.^  First  of  all,  as 
a  grand  objection,  arises  this :  Is  it  credible  that  such  an  extra- 
ordinary Passover  loould  have  been  allowed  to  pass  hy  the  priests 
in  the  temple,  that  the}''  would  have  consented  to  the  offering, 
to  the  outpouring  of  the  blood  by  the  altar?  If  not,  then  the 
idea  of  a  Passover  must  be  altogether  abandoned,  and  a  return 
made  to  the  view  of  those  Greeks  who  regarded  the  Lord's 
Supper  as  a  substitute  for  the  Passover — this,  too,  in  complete 
opposition  to  the  text.  Yet  besides  this,  the  text  creates  addi- 
tional difficulties.  From  the  connection  in  which  in  Mark 
xiv.  12,  the  words  xai — £<?yov  stand  with  the  question  of  the 

1  As  the  leaven  was  removed  as  early  as  the  fourteenth  of  Nisan,  this  was  also 
counted  among  the  days  of  unleavened  bread. 

*  Grotius  already  has  this  view ;  Neander  appears  by  an  independent  process  to 
have  reached  the  same  view,  1.  c.  p.  635,  (Eng.  tr.  385.)  Could  not  Luke  xxii.  15 
be  used  with  still  more  plausibility  for  this  view  ? 

3  It  remains  to  be  noticed  that  the  person  interested  did  not  need  to  be  present  at 
the  killing  of  the  lamb,  that  this  also  could  be  done  by  substitution. 


308  CiiAP.  xin.  — V.  1. 

DisciploF!,  we  must  believe  that  when  tbey  put  the  question  they 
also  took  it  for  granted  that  the  Saviour  would  keep  the 
Passover  at  the  usual  time.  Had  he  designed  to  make  an 
exception  in  this  particular  case,  must  he  not  have  expressly 
mentioned  it  in  his  reply  ?  In  addition,  Mark  xiv.  17,  (cf. 
Matt.  xxvi.  20,)  undoubtedly  points  to  the  fact,  that  the 
arrangement  was  made  by  the  Disciples  in  the  earlier  part 
of  the  day ;  to  be  sure,  Luke  xxii.  14  has,  "  when  the  hour 
was  come,"  ore  iysvero  -j  wpa,  which  accords  more  nearly 
with  the  solution  we  are'  now  discussing.  But  besides,  diffi- 
culty has  been  excited  by  this  view,  because  it  imposes  a 
necessity  of  supposing  that  the  Redeemer  deviated  in  that  holy 
festival  from  the  legal  appointment.  The  view  consequently 
has  been  defended,  especially  since  the  period  of  the  Reforma- 
tion :  that  rather  on  the  part  of  the  Jeivs,  in  order  to  avoid  the 
strictness  of  a  Sabbath-keeping  on  two  consecutive  days,  there 
had  been  a  transfer  to  the  Sabbath  of  the  first  feast  day,  which 
this  time  preceded  the  Sabbath,  and  in  the  id  si,  Luke  xxii.  7,  it 
was  thought  there  was  evidence  that  our  Lord,  in  his  own  cele- 
bration of  the  Passover,  had  remained  faithful  to  the  legal  time. 
Among  the  Reformed,  as  well  as  among  the  Lutheran  exposi- 
tors, Calvin,  Beza,  Bucer,  Flacius,  Gerhard,  Calovius,  and  many 
others,  this  is  the  prevalent  expedient,  which  is  defended  also  by 
Scaliger  and  Casaubon.  The  oldest  trace  of  it  is  referred  by 
Gerhard  (Harmon  Ev.  ii.  p.  934,)  to  Rupert,  and  by  him  to  Paul 
Burgensis,  Now  it  is  certainly  correct,  that  an  expedient  of 
the  sort  mentioned  is  practiced  by  the  modern  Jews,  (see  par- 
ticulars in  Iken,  Dissert,  iii.  417 ;  Bynaus,  de  morte  Christi,  1.  i. 
c.  i.)  but  it  has  been  shown  by  Cocceius,  not.  ad  Sanh.  c.  i.  §  2, 
Bochart  and  others,  that  passages  occur  in  the  Talmud  which 
prove  it  not  to  have  been  the  usage  of  that  period. — A  new 
path  has  been  struck  out  by  the  learned  men  who  attempted  to 
show,  that  according  as  the  new  moon  was  determined  either 
astronomically  by  the  conjunction  of  the  moon  with  the  sun,  or 
by  its  appearing  in  the  heaven,  the  Jews  themselves  might  fix 
the  fifteenth  of  Nisan  about  a  day  earlier  or  later,  and  that  the 
Karaites,  whom  Jesus  followed,  actually  had  fixed  it  by  the 
appearing  of  the  moon,  (and  thus  indeed,  at  that  time,  one  day 
earlier,)  and  the  Rabbinical  part  fixed  it  by  the  calculus  in  con- 


Jesus  washes  nis  Disciples'  feet.  309 

nection  with  the  appearing.  This  latter  view  lias  been  main- 
tained with  a  very  great  expenditure  of  erudition  by  Iken,  Dia- 
sertat.  ii.  With  all  the  acutcness  and  learning,  however,  which 
have  characterized  this  defense,  it  rests  upon  too  many  unsafe 
premises.  Nothing  is  known  of  any  such  dissension  in  the 
time  of  Christ ;  according  to  Joscphus,  the  Paschal  lamb  waa 
slain  by  all  Israelites  on  the  same  day ;  the  very  existence  of 
the  sect  of  Karaites  in  Christ's  time,  is  more  than  uncertain, 
and  it  would  be  more  natural  to  expect  that  the  Rabbinists,  who 
computed  astronomically,  would  fix  the  new  moon  earlier^  and 
the  Karaites  fix  it  later,  than  the  converse. — The  essay  at  expla- 
nation which  had  already  been  presented  by  Frisch,  "  On  the 
Paschal  Lamb,"  1758,  and  combated  in  that  day  by  Gabler, 
(Neues  theol.  Journal,  Bd.  3,  St.  5,  1799,)  has  been  again 
brought  out  and  invested  with  great  plausibility  at  a  very 
recent  period,  (Ranch,  Stud.  u.  Kritik.  1832,  H.  3.^)  The  view  is 
this :  The  legal  determination,  by  the  fourteenth  of  JSTisan,  means 
not  the  end  of  the  day,  but  its  beginning,  consequently  the  evening 
of  the  thirteenth.  This  is  beyond  dispute  deducible  from  Jose- 
phus,  Antiq.  2, 14, 16,  where  we  read  that  the  Jews  were  obliged 
to  select  a  lamb  on  the  tenth  of  Nisan,  and  to  keep  it  until  the 
fourteenth,  and  iuazdcrr^i;  r7j^  Tzaaa[)t^xaedexdzrj<;  "  at  the  beginning 
of  the  fourteenth,"  to  kill  it.  The  day  of  the  crucifixion  would 
consequently  fall  on  the  fourteenth  of  Nisan.  After  it  has  been 
furthermore  shown  that  in  the  strict  sense  the  Passover  lasted 
only  seven  days,  from  the  first  day  of  the  feast,  the  Tzpb  loprrji;  zoo 
Ttda'/^a,  xiii.  1,  is  interpreted,  "before  the  Passover  properly  so 
called" — which  commenced,  to  wit:  twenty-four  hours  later. 
on  the  fifteenth  of  Nisan.  It  is  shown  further,  that  on  this 
view,  John  xix.  14  and  31  allow  of  a  very  satisfactory 
explanation,  since  then  in  xix.  14,  the  Tzapaaxzuri  zoo  rAa-^a 
is  the  day  before  the  Passover  proper,  and  in  v.  31,  that 
Sabbath  is  called  iitydlrj,  (high,  great,)  because  the  first  day 
of  the  festival  fell  upon  it,  which,  just  as  much  as  the  last, 
was  regarded  as  a  grand  day.  In  ch.  xix.  28,  however,  there 
remains  no  other  resource  than  the  supposition  that  zb 
■Kday/x.  there  is  meant  to  designate  not  the  Paschal  lamb,  but 

(1  Translated  by  Robinson,  Biblical  Repository,  vol.  iv.  1834.     Tr.) 

T 


310  Chap.  XIIL  — v.  1. 

the  unleavened  bread,  zd  d^u/aa,  which  was  eaten  throughout 
the  festival  proper.  In  examining  this  view,  we  must,  first  of 
all,  look  more  narrowly  at  the  expressions  in  regard  to  the 
legal  participation  in  the  Paschal  Supper ;  such  an  examination 
establishes  the  fact,  that  even  in  the  Pentateuch  itself  there  is 
on  this  point  a  want  of  certainty  in  the  specifications.  To 
the  idea  that  it  was  eaten  on  the  evening  of  the  thirteenth,  is 
certainly  opposed  the  fact,  that  the  Israelites,  according  to 
Numbers  xxxiii.  3,  went  forth  on  the  fifteenth  of  Nisan,  and 
if  the  departure,  according  to  Ex.  xii.  30,  seq.  followed  in  the 
same  night,  on  the  evening  preceding  which  the  Passover  had 
been  eaten,  it  follows  that  it  must  have  been  eaten  on  the 
evening  of  the  fourteenth.  But  with  this  again  it  conflicts, 
that  in  the  very  same  passage,  Num.  xxxiii.  3,  the  day  of  de- 
parture is  called  the  "morrow  of  the  Passover;"  nor  does  it 
seem  to  fit  in  properly  with  that  view,  that  in  Ex.  xii.  22,  it 
is  said  that  none  shall  go  out  until  the  morning.  This  uncon- 
nected exhibition  in  the  Pentateuch  renders  it  specially  neces- 
sary to  look  at  the  later  practice.  In  that  practice,  the  time  of 
the  Supper  fell  upon  the  evening  of  the  fourteenth  of  ISTisan, 
and  the  passage  adduced  by  Ranch,  from  Josephus,  shows 
nothing  to  the  contrary,  for  the  expression,  ivaro-a/j:;  rr^i;  zsaaa- 
pei;x'judzmTr^i;,  would  only  necessarily  mean:  "at  the  day-break 
of  the  fourteenth  day,"  in  case  these  words  formed  an  antithe- 
sis to  another  time  of  day ;  as  it  is,  however,  merely  the  date  of 
a  day  to  which  they  are  opposed,  as  namely,  the  fourteenth 
day  is  opposed  to  the  thirteenth,  the  only  proper  translation  of 
them  is,  "at  the  beginning  of  the  fourteenth  day."  To  this 
must  be  added,  that  it  is  not  at  all  credible,  that  between  the 
Paschal  meal,  at  which  already  unleavened  bread  was  used, 
and  the  day  of  which  was  counted  with  the  feast,  that  between 
this  and  the  first  day  of  the  festival  proper,  a  day  having  no 
connection  with  the  feast  would  be  thrown  in. — The  last  attempt 
to  harmonize  the  Synoptists  with  what  is  apparently  the  mean- 
ino-  of  John,  has  been  made  by  Ebrard,  who  maintains  that  as 
the  255,600  lambs,  which,  according  to  Josephus,  were  usually 
Idlled  in  the  space  of  two  hours,  from  three  to  five  o'clock, 
must  have  required  a  longer  time  and  more  room,  the  Passover 
must  have  been  slain  and  eaten  as  early  as  the  thirteenth  of 


Jesus  washes  his  Disciples'  feet.  311 

Nisan,  especially  by  the  poorer  classes,  and  the  Galileans,  (1.  c. 
ii.  p.  631,  seq.)  Capellus,  (in  his  Epis.  ad  Cloppcnb.  de  die, 
etc.  p.  112,)  in  order  to  establish  his  theory  that  the  Paschal 
lamb  could  also  be  slain  at  home,  had  already  made  reference  to 
a  want  of  time,  as  also  of  space  in  the  fore-court,  for  the  num- 
ber of  offerings.  Ebrard  has  indeed  carried  out  his  view  learn- 
edly and  acutely,  but  even  more  than  that  of  Iken  it  rests  on 
insecure  hypotheses.  He  is  mistaken  in  attempting  to  prove 
from  2  Chron.  xxxv.  11,  that  the  priests  (the  Lcvitcs  rather !) 
slew  the  lambs,  the  opposite  is  proven  by  2  Chron.  xxx.  17,  and 
by  the  Mischna ;  it  was  the  duty  of  the  priests  merely  to  burn 
the  fat,  and  pour  out  the  blood  by  the  altar,  (see  B3"nlius,  p. 
38;  Gablcr,  neuest.  Journal,  ii.  1  St.  p.  483;  "Winer,  Eealw. 
ii.  p.  234.)  Ebrard  does  not  seem  to  have  compared  the  Tr. 
Pesachim,  in  the  fifth  chapter  of  which  there  is  a  complete 
description  of  the  whole  series  of  occurrences,  from  which  we 
learn,  that  the  people  in  three  successive  companies  came  into 
the  fore-court,  that  the  priests  themselves  did  not  slay  the 
lambs;  indeed,  Rabbi  Jehudah  expressly  declares,  in  his  time, 
when  the  third  company  was  there,  as  it  was  but  a  small  one, 
there  was  no  time  even  to  get  through  with  the  singing  of  the 
Hallel,  (ch.  v.  §  7.)  We  pass  by  yet  other  observations  that 
might  be  opposed  to  this  theory,  and  only  remark  that,  accord- 
ing to  Maimonides,  in  case  of  necessity,  they  might  help  them- 
selves through  by  taking  the  night  also. 

In  the  more  recent  period  an  effort  has  been  made  to  refer 
back  the  data  in  John  to  the  exegetical  inferences  from  the 
synoptical  Gospels,  thus  Lightfoot,  Bochart,  Bynaus,  Reland, 
Guerike,  in  Winer's  krit.  Jour.  B.  3,  St.  6 ;  Hemsen,  Autheutie 
des  Johannes,  p.  279,  seq.;  Kern,  Tiib.  Zeits.  1836,  3  II.  p.  1 ; 
Hengstenberg,  in  the  Evangel.  Kirchcnzeit.  1838,  p.  98,  seq. 
We  will  consider  what  shape,  according  to  this  view,  is  taken 
by  the  passages  of  John  involved  in  this  discussion. 

I.  Chap.  xiii.  1. — If  ■^j'fdzrjatv  is  here  meant  to  designate  the 
sentiment  of  love,  it  is  surprising  that  it  is  connected  with  a 
determining  of  time,  and  we  might,  therefore,  understand  by 
it  an  attestation  of  love  connected  with  a  deed,  as  Gerhard 
already  observes :  "  non  amor  affbetivus  sed  actualis,"  (not  love 
as  an  emotion,  but  love  as  an  act ;)  with  this,  however,  tho  ere 


312  Chap.  Xm.— v.  1. 

riXo^  is  ill  conflict,  which  Liicke  would  translate  "finally" — 
rather  might  it  be  rendered  "wholly"  (Cyrill  ?)  The  thought 
of  the  Disciple  is  certainly,  however,  only  this:  "When  the 
Saviour,  previous  to  the  last  Passover,  had  the  end  of  his  life 
vividly  before  him,  the  love  which  he  had  previously  felt  was 
aroused  in  its  full  strengtli  in  this  last  hour — he  is  thinking  at 
the  same  time  of  such  declarations  of  love  as  that  in  Luke 
xxii.  15.  Therewith  this  narration  of  the  attestation  of  his 
love  by  this  action  of  his  connects  itself.  Feuopiuoo  cannot 
mean  "when  it  had  been  made  ready,"  for  v.  4  is  opposed  to 
this,  but  only  "during  the  meal."  It  is  in  itself  improbable 
that  the  proper  translation  is  a  supper,  as  in  that  case  the 
language  would  rather  have  been,  xal  iiToci^aav  autw  oscrrvov. 
The  Evangelist  seems  to  presume  that  it  is  a  supper  already  fa- 
miliar to  the  reader,  to  which  also  xxi.  20  refers.  Under  these 
circumstances,  it  is  probable  in  the  very  highest  degree  that  the 
designation,  rcpb  tyj^  kopzYjC:  too  nday^a,  points  to  this  very  same 
meal.  "With  the  second  " evening,"  oip'ta,  began  the  fifteenth  of 
Nisan,  and  the  Paschal  Supper  took  place,  (Mark  xiv.  17;)  Winer, 
p.  116,  (tr.  105,)  also  thinks  that  the  omission  of  the  article  is  au 
argument  that  it  was  the  well  known  Supper.  The  Evangelist, 
consequently,  means  to  say  this:  "Previous  to  the  beginning 
of  the  feast,  Christ  still  bore  himself  among  his  Disciples  in 
the  most  loving  manner,  and  during  the  Supper  he  gave  a 
positive  proof  of  this  love." 

n.  Chap.  xiii.  29. — The  "feast,"  kopzij,  it  is  alleged,  is  here 
mentioned  as  still  impending,  the  Disciples  suppose  that  Judas 
is  ordered  to  purchase  the  things  needed  for  the  feast,  or  to 
give  something  to  the  poor  for  the  same  object ;  that  "  supper," 
dscnvoiJ,  consequently,  is  not  the  Paschal  meal ;  had  it,  however, 
even  been  after  it  on  the  night  of  the  first  great  day  of  the  feast, 
it  would  no  longer  have  been  allowable  to  carry  on  trafiic.  This 
proof,  also,  has  great  plausibility,  to  which,  however,  is  already 
opposed  the  weight  of  v.  1,  2.  Even  after  the  feast  had  com- 
menced, might  he  not  have  been  told,  reference  being  had  to  the 
seven  following  days,  to  purchase  things  necessary  for  it  ?  We, 
ourselves,  would  indisputably  use  such  language  on  the  morn- 
ing of  the  first  day  of  a  festival.  As  regards  the  admissibility 
of  traffic,  we  have  only  to  recall  the  manifold  casuistic  limita- 


Jesus  washes  uis  Disciples'  feet.  313 

tious  of  the  Talmudists,  The  school  of  llillel  regarded  the 
night  preceding  the  feast-day  as  less  holy  than  the  day  itself, 
as  Tr.  Pesachiin,  c.  4,  §  5,  proves.  Furthermore,  a  purchase 
could  be  made  even  on  the  Sabbath,  by  leaving  a  pledge  and 
afterward  settling  the  account,  (Tr.  Schabbath,  c.  23,  §  1 ;)  gifts, 
too,  could  be  made  to  the  poor  under  certain  limitations,  (Tr. 
Schabbath,  c.  1,  §  1,)  and  we  may  specially  bear  in  mind  on  this 
point,  that  there  was  an  obligation  to  furnish  to  every  poor  man 
the  means  of  procuring  four  cups  of  wine,  (Tr.  Pesachim,  c.  10, 

III.  The  main  passage  is  chap,  xviii.  28. — On  the  day  of 
Christ's  crucifixion  the  Jews  would  not  pollute  themselves  by 
entering  the  house  of  a  heathen,  (cva  (pdycoat  to  TrdtT^a.)  Follow- 
ing the  lead  of  Lightfoot,  Bynaus,  and  others,  it  has  been  held 
that  by  the  -day/i  we  are  here  to  understand  the  Chagiga,  that 
is,  the  peace-ofterings  appointed  for  the  feast  days.  On  the 
part  of  the  opponents,  this  view,  that  these  are  called  riDi),  has 
been  contested,  and  by  none  so  thoroughly  as  by  Iken,  whom 
Liicke  and  De  Wette  should  not  have  passed  here  without 
mention.  Even  after  the  thorough  contesting  of  the  point  by 
Iken,  the  fact  remains,  that  in  the  Talmud  some  Rabbins  have 
by  HD?.  understood  the  peace-offerings.  On  the  other  side,  he 
and  those  who  follow  him  have  not  let  pass  undisputed  the 
places  cited  in  evidence,  Deuteron.  xvi.  2,  2  Chron.  xxxv.  7,  8, 
9.  Nevertheless,  it  is  certain  that  in  both  passages  the  word 
HDi?.  embraces  all  the  sacrifices  connected  with  the  feast  of  the 
Passover ;  that  no,;?,  Deuteron.  xvi.  2,  designates  merely  the 
lamb,  (De  Wette,)  cannot  be  granted,  since  it  has  not  the 
article,  the  vSj;?  in  v.  3  is  also  decidedly  against  it.  Cf.  also,  2 
Chron.  xxx.  22,  where  it  is  said :  "  they  did  eat  throughout  the 
feast  seven  days,  offering  peace-offerings,  &c."  Mosheim,  con- 
sequentl}',  whom  Strauss  follows,  had  very  properly  already 
reduced  the  objection  to  this;  "if  the  offering  of  the  Chagiga 
together  with,  the  Paschal  lamb  could  be  called  noa,  it  certainly 
could  not  be  so  called  without  it."  On  this  point  Ilengsten- 
berg,  1.  c.,  following  the  views  of  the  older  writers,  has  ex- 
pressed himself  with  such  solid  judgment  that  it  is  a  matter  of 
surprise  that  no  mention  even  of  his  Dissertation  is  made  by 
Liicke  or  De  Wette.     If  iu  the  usage  of  the  language  with 

28 


314  Chap.  XTH.  — v.  1. 

more  latitude,  the  whole  feast  is  called  nog,  and  if  on  the  fol- 
lowing days  also  the  sacrificatorj  feasts  were  partaken  of, 
namely,  the  thank-offerings  for  the  Passover,  then  there  ap- 
pears to  be  no  reason  why  the  expression  (paydv  Ttdayna.  might  not 
be  used  of  these  offerings  also,  which  stood  in  the  most  inti- 
mate relation  with  the  Paschal  lamb ;  if  the  term  be  used  with 
reference  to  the  first  day,  it  designates  the  eating  of  the  Pas- 
chal lamb,  if  with  reference  to  the  following  days,  it  designates 
the  eating  of  the  other  offerings  which  in  connection  with  the 
Paschal  lamb  formed  the  feast.  Thus,  nD3,  "  to  keep  the  Pass- 
over," occurs  in  the  Rabbins  with  specific  reference  to  eating  the 
unleavened  bread,  (Reland,  Antt.  sacr.  ed.  Vogel,  p.  270.)  That 
we  have  ro  -jidaya  here,  makes  no  difference,  (Winer,  Eealwort. 
ii.  p.  241,  Anm.  3.)  Lightfoot  and  Bynaus  direct  attention  to 
the  fact,  moreover,  that  the  entering  of  the  house  of  a  heathen 
produced  one  of  those  defilements  which  only  lasted  until 
sun-down.  As  now  the  time  of  the  Paschal  Supper  proper 
came  after  sundown,  the  entrance  into  the  house  of  a  heathen 
could  in  this  particular  case  have  had  no  influence,  and  we  must, 
therefore,  suppose  the  Chagiga  to  be  meant;  that  this  argument 
is  entirely  valid,  has  been  established  by  Hengstenberg  against 
the  more  recent  objections.^  A  doubt  still  remains  after  this 
explanation,  and  at  the  first  glance  seems  to  have  force,  and 
can  likewise  be  turned  in  utramque  partem,  (against  either 
side,)  yet  to  the  present  time  has  not  been  thoroughly  examined 
and  cleared  up  from  the  Jewish  antiquities,  the  doubt,  whether 
on  the  first  day  of  the  feast,  which  according  to  Exod.  xii.  16 
was  probably  to  be  kept  like  a  Sabbath,  all  the  occupations 
involved  in  the  trial,  crucifixion  and  interment  of  Jesus,  could 
have  been  carried  on  ?  Among  those  who  consider  the  state- 
ment of  the  Synoptists  as  wrong,  Liicke  has  thought  it  enough 
as  regards  the  proof  passages  from  the  Talmud,  simply  to  make 
reference  to  some  of  the  recent  Dissertations.  Movers,  for  the 
most  part,  indeed,  after  Lightfoot,  has  collected  most  diligently 
the  various  examples.  When  now  he  shows  from  the  Talmud 
that  it  was  forbidden  on  the  Sabbath  to  bear  arms,  to  hold 
court,  to  carry  wood,  to  go  through  the  streets  with  sj)ices,  and 

1  The  opposite  view  has  been  defended  most  thoroughly  hy  Movers ;  vre  regret 
that  want  of  space  compels  us  to  forego  an  examination  of  his  objections  in  detail. 


Jesus  washes  his  Disciples'  feet.  315 

wheu  we  see  the  servants  of  the  high  priest  on  the  night  on 
which  our  Saviour  was  betrayed  bearing  arms,  the  high  priest 
sitting  in  judgment,  the  condemned  persons  bearing  the  cross, 
Nicodemus  bringing  no  less  than  one  hundred  pounds  of  spice, 
who  can  persuade  himself  that  all  this  occurred  on  the  first  day 
of  the  high  festival  ?  Above  all  other  considerations,  we  would 
direct  attention  to  the  fact,  that  with  all  the  sanctity  of  that 
first  day,  according  to  the  law  and  the  Talmud,  the  distinction, 
nevertheless,  between  a  Sabhath  and  a  feast  day  held  good  through- 
out. In  relation  precisely  to  the  first  and  the  last  day  of  the 
Passover,  permission  was  given  to  prepare  food  upon  them,  a 
thing  not  at  all  allowed  upon  the  Sabbath,  (Exod.  xii.  IG ;)  the 
Tr.  Be'za,  or  lomtob,  presents,  moreover,  manifold  examples  of 
things  allowed  on  feast-days  which  were  prohibited  on  the 
Sabbath,  and  the  school  of  Hillel  especially,  gave  still  wider 
license  in  these  matters,  (Tr.  Be'za,  ch.  5,  §  2.)  But  apart 
from  this,  all  the  instances  cited  lose  their  force  when  we 
remember  that  those  ordinances  were  expressed  only  in  general 
terms,  tliat  on  the  other  hand,  in  reference  to  particular  kinds 
of  transactions,  special  prescriptions  were  given,  as  for  ex- 
ample, in  the  case  of  a  circumcision  or  of  a  funeral,  much 
was  allowed  that  under  other  circumstances  was  forbidden, 
(Schabbath,  c.  23,  §  5;)  Movers  himself  proves  that  criminals 
might  be  arrested,  (Acts  xii.  3,  4 — and  this  could  hardly  l)c 
done  without  arms  ?)  as  he  has  also  with  Lightfoot  obviated 
the  argument  adduced  by  Llicke,  that  no  one  after  the  Paschal 
Supper  could  leave  the  city,  by, proving  that  the  neighborhood 
of  Bethphage  was  counted  in  the  city.  Strauss,  therefore, 
over  against  the  various  Talmudic  examples,  pro  et  contra, 
has  wisely  reduced  this  objection  to  the  one  point,  that  in 
the  inteiTQcdiate  feast  days  indeed,  but  probably  not  on  the 
fii'st  and  last,  criminals  might  be  executed.  We  have  accord- 
ingly, these  two  questions  to  answer:  1)  Was  it  in  general 
permitted  to  hear  causes,  and  have  executions  during  the 
feast  ?  2)  And  if  this  were  the  case,  could  they  also  be  attend- 
ed to  on  the  first  and  on  the  last  day  of  the  feast?  With 
regard  to  the  first  question,  Llicke  traverses  the  indictment, 
only  by  quoting  from  Tr.  lomtob,  c.  5.  Movers  adds  Tr. 
Schabbath,  c.  1,  §  2,  and  out  of  Lightfoot,  a  passage  from 


316  Chap.  XIII.— v.  1. 

the  Babylonian  Gemara,  and  from  Maimonides,  according  to 
which  latter,  no  judicial  proceedings  could  be  commenced  on 
the  evening  before  the  Sabbaths  and  feast  days.  These  very 
passages,  however,  prove  that  judicial  action  could  be  had. 
The  passages,  Schabbath,  i.  2,  and  lomtob,  v.  2,  merely  give 
particular  directions  in  regard  to  the  court  to  be  held,  and 
indeed  in  the  latter,  the  prohibition  of  holding  a  court  is  not 
embraced  in  the  category  of  the  mvD,  the  commandment  proper, 
but  of  the  r\w\  that  is,  what  may  be  done  on  certain  conditions. 
The  extract  from  the  Gemara  treat?  merely  of  criminal  cases, 
and  expressly  declares,  that  this  does  not  hold  good  of  cases  in 
which  money  is  involve'd,  and  what  is  the  reason?  Because 
the  sentence  of  condemnation  could  not  be  pronounced  till  the 
following  day,  and  that  too  after  it  had  been  reduced  to  wanting, 
(Lightfoot,  Opera,  ii.  384,  the  passage  too,  p.  465,  shows  that 
the  sentence  of  death  could  be  passed  on  the  Sabbath.)  Nor 
can  the  fact  be  lightly  passed  over,  that  the  Jews,  (Matt.  xxvi. 
5,)  as  the  reason  why  Jesus  should  not  be  seized  and  executed 
during  the  feast,  allege,  not  the  sanctity  of  the  feast,  but  the 
danger  of  an  uproar.  But  it  is  decisive,  that  the  Gemara  Tr. 
Sanhedrim,  ch.  x.  ed.  Cocc.  p.  297,  says  in  downright  terms : 
"  The  Sanhedrim  assembled  in  the  session  room  of  the  stone 
chamber,  from  the  time  of  the  morning  offering  to  that  of  the 
evening,  hut  on  the  Sabbaths  and  feast  days  they  assembled  them- 
selves within  ^Tia,  ivhich  is  the  lotver  wall,  which  surrounded  the 
greater,  in  the  vicinity  of  the  fore-court  of  the  women."  Movers 
makes  use  of  Lundius,  p.  460,  according  to  whose  opinion  this 
place  was  rather  a  law  school,  used  for  instruction  in  the  law. 
But  this  is  the  isolated  exposition  of  the  Rabbi  Salomo,  the 
text  clearly  enough  expresses  the  opposite,  and  it  is  moreover 
to  be  noted,  that  according  to  Sanh.  c.  10,  §  2,  and  Bartenora 
on  the  passage,  at  this  very  place  was  to  be  found  one  of  the 
two  courts  of  session  for  the  twenty- three  men — the  locality 
probably  which  was  then  used  by  the  Sanhedrim.  Another 
passage,  whose  testimonj'-  is  just  as  positive  as  to  the  directions 
for  the  feast,  is  the  Mischna  Sanh.  x.  4:  "An  elder,  who  does 
not  subject  himself  to  the  judgment  of  the  Sanhedrim,  shall 
be  taken  from  the  place  where  he  lives  to  Jerusalem,  shall  be 
kept  there  until  one  of  the  three  feasts,  and  shall  be  killed  at 


Jesus  washes  his  Disciples'  feet.  317 

the  time  of  the  feast,  for  the  reason  stated,  Deut.  xvii.  13." 
Movers  has  nothing  to  meet  this  but  the  hypothesis,  tliat  per- 
haps nothing  more  is  meant  than  the  day  before  the  feast.  ]S"o 
distinction  is  made  in  any  of  these  passages  between  the  first 
day  of  the  feast  and  the  others.  We  consider  it,  therefore,  as 
certain,  that  judicial  proceedings  were  also  held  on  the  feast 
days,  perhaps  under  certain  legal  provisos,  (cf.  Selden,  de  Syn. 
p.  805,)  and  that  this  very  period,  when  large  assemblages  of 
the  people  came  together,  was,  for  the  reason  mentioned  Deut. 
xvii.  13,  selected  for  the  execution  of  notorious  criminals — a 
view  attended  with  still  less  difficulty  in  the  case  before  us,  as 
it  concerned  the  punishment  of  a  blasphemer,  the  execution  of 
whom  was  doing  God  service,  (John  xvi.  2,)  and  what  per- 
tained to  the  service  of  God  never  broke  the  Sabbath.  Besides, 
it  was  not  the  Jews  themselves,  but  the  Roman  soldiers,  who 
actually  executed  the  crucifixion. 

rV.  John  xix.  14,  31. — Those  who  maintain  a  discrepancy 
between  John  and  the  Synoptists,  suppose  that  in  both  these 
passages,  -apaaxvjij  must  be  taken  for  "  the  day  of  preparation 
for  the  Passover,"  and  the  more  so,  as  the  word  yLzydlrj  in  v.  31 
probably  designates  the  concurrence  of  the  first  day  of  the 
feast  with  the  Sabbath.  Kow  it  is  maintained  by  Bochart, 
Reland,  Hengstenberg,  that  Tzapaaxvj-j  never  means  the  prepa- 
ration day  to  a  feast,  but  always  the  one  to  a  Sabbath  ;  on  the 
other  hand,  Ebrard  will  not  concede  that  it  mav  have  desio-na- 
ted  merely  a  week  day.  The  word  corresponds  to  the  Hebrew 
nrpq,  prteparatio,  and  designates  originally  the  afternoon  from 
three  o'clock,  when  the  cooking,  &c.,  was  done  for  the  Sabbath, 
and  is  used  in  exactly  the  same  way  in  the  imperial  proclamation 
in  Josephus,  Antiq.xvi.  6,  2;  but  like  the  German  ^ownahend, 
(literally,  Bnn-evening  for  Saturday,)  Weihnac7/f,  (Christmas 
night  for  Christmas,)  it  was  also  a  designation  of  days.  This  is 
certain  from  Mark  xv.  42,  John  xix.  42,  hence  also  the  Chal- 
dee  «i"^,2oj;,  for  the  week  day,  Friday.  The  possibility  that  -ap- 
aaxvjT)  may  also  have  been  used  for  the  preparation  days  of  the 
feast,  we  might  not  in  itself  deny  perhaps,  although,  as  De 
"W"ette  himself  confesses,  there  is  a  complete  want  of  examples 
of  such  use ;  but  in  the  passages  in  John,  this  interpretation  is 
completely  excluded  by  the  absolute  use  of  ^  Tzapaaxtorj  raiu  'lou- 

28* 


318  Chap.  Xm.  — v.  1-5. 

daicov,  ch.  xix.  42.  V.  31  shows,  too,  that  the  importance  is 
attached  to  the  .Sabbath,  and  not  to  the  first  day  of  the  feast, 
80  that  there  we  can  by  rrapaaxsuij  understand  none  other  than 
the  day  preceding  the  Sabbath.  As  regards  the  grammatical 
admissibility  in  ch.  xix.  14  of  Luther's  rendering,  "  the  prepara- 
tion day  in  the  Passover,"  no  difficulty  whatever  exists.  This 
is  shown  by  Ignatius,  ad  Phil.  c.  13,  ad^^azov  too  izda-^^a,  and 
by  Socrates,  Hist.  Eccles.  v.  22,  ad^^avov  r.  koprrj<;.  The  excep- 
tion of  Ebrard  may  seem  to  have  more  weight:  "  "Why  should 
the  Evangelist,  in  xix.  14,  instead  of  simply  saying  the  first 
day  of  the  Passover,  designate  this  day  as  a  Friday  occurring 
in  the  feast  of  the  Passover  ?  What  reasons  can  be  assigned  for 
this  very  peculiar  appellation  ?"  But  it  is  preferable  to  trans- 
late "the  preparation  day  in  the  Passover  feast,"  by  which  this 
day  will  be  designated  as  belonging  to  the  feast,  and  John 
uses  this  expression,  partly  because  it  had  become  usual  to 
designate  the  day  of  our  Lord's  death  as  a  preparation  day, 
partly  because  he  already  had  in  his  eye,  at  this  point,  the  fact 
mentioned  in  v.  31.^ 

V.  1-3.  Although  the  attempt  has  been  made  by  a  few 
writers,  (Lightfoot,  Hess,)  to  show  that  this  de7-vou  was  not  the 
Paschal  Supper,  yet  at  present  all  unite  in  the  opposite  view,  to 
which,  as  has  been  shown,  the  words  of  v.  1  lead  us,  as  do  the 
closing  discourses,  and  especially  xiii.  38,  (Strauss.)  That  John 
passes  by  the  institution  of  the  symbolic  action  of  the  Lord's 

1  [The  Discussion  of  the  Passover  Question,  has,  in  the  7th  ed.  of  Tholuck's 
John,  been  transferred  from  the  opening  of  the  thirtecnti  chapter  to  the  Introduc- 
tion, ^  8,  2,  p.  38—52.  The  history  of  the  views  entertained  upon  the  different  ques- 
tions here  involved,  is  arranged  under  the  following  heads :  I.  The  Passover  Ques- 
tion in  the  Ancient  Church.  II.  In  the  Romish  and  Protestant  Churches,  down  to 
the  time  of  Schlciermacher.  III.  Since  Baur.  At  the  close  of  this  historic  sketch, 
Tholuck  says:  "  We  confess,  that  in  this  7th  ed  we  still  feel  ourselves  obliged  to 
keep  to  that  view  which  has  been  defended  in  the  earlier  editions  of  our  Commen- 
tary. As  the  judgment  in  regard  to  the  authorship  of  the  Apocalypse  has  experi- 
enced such  a  revolution,  it  may  perhaps  not  be  among  historic  impossibilities  that  a 
revolution  of  judgment  on  this  question  may  also  take  place." 

The  most  important  discussions  of  the  Passover  question,  in  English,  are  to  bo 
found  in  Robinson's  Harmony  of  the  Four  Gospels,  in  Greek,  p.  220,  and  in  an  article 
in  the  Bibliotheca  Sacra  for  1845.  Davidson's  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament. 
London:  Bagster,  1818,  p.  102-111.  No  discussioi  of  the  question  we  have  yet 
seen  from  an  English  hand,  equals  in  interest,  or  surpasses  in  value,  the  one  fur- 
nished in  Dr.  Fairbairn's  Hermeneutical  Manual,  or  Introduction  to  the  Esegeticnl 
Study  of  the  New  Testament.  Clark  &  Co.,  Edinburgh,  1858;  reprinted,  Philadel- 
phia: Smith,  English  &  Co.,  1859.  p.  368-389.  Dr.  Fairbairn's  conclusion  is,  "that 
our  Lord  kept  the  Passover  with  his  Disciples  on  the  fourteenth  of  Nisan,  on  the 
day  prescribed  by  the  law."     Tr.] 


Jesus  washes  his  Disciples'  feet.  319 

Supper,  yet  mentions  the  feet  washing,  serves  to  confirm  the  fact 
that  he  presumed  the  ample  Evangelical  narration  of  the  Synop- 
tists  to  be  known,  and  designed  to  present  what  was  new. — The 
parenthetical  sentence,  v.  2,  renders  prominent  the  thought,  that 
this  frame  of  Judas'  mind  had  not  prevented  this  act  of  love 
from  being  performed  to  him  also ;  the  agreement  with  the  high 
council  had  already  been  entered  into,  (Luke  xxii.  3,  seq.)  but 
might  3^et  have  been  broken ;  v.  27,  therefore,  designates  the 
determination  actually  to  fulfill  it  by  delivering  up  Christ,  as 
the  acme  of  the  crime.  EldtoQ  is  to  be  resolved  into  "  al- 
though," for  the  words  that  follow  are  designed  to  give  prom- 
inence to  the  contrast  between  the  consciousness  which  Jesus 
had  of  his  dignity  and  the  lowliness  of  the  action.  In  Matt. 
xi.  27,  the  Saviour  employs  similar  language  of  himself;  "that 
he  was  come  from  God,"  dr.b  &to~j  k^rjkde,  is  to  be  explained  in 
the  same  sense  as  viii.  42.  This  observation  of  the  Evangelist 
proves  that  to  him  also  the  scene  that  follows,  appeared  as  one 
of  the  sublimest  in  the  life  of  our  Lord.  In  fact,  we  might,  in 
contemplating  this  scene,  say  with  Claudius:  "  Such  an  ideal  of 
man,  as  presents  itself  here,  never  entered  the  heart  of  man. 
"Whatever  of  greatness  and  glory  antiquity  may  present — a  dying 
Epaminoudas,  a  dying  Socrates — vanishes  before  this  ideal  of 
Deity  in  humiliation,  and  of  a  divine  form  of  a  servant." 
Even  Schweizer,  1.  c.  p.  160,  declares  that  no  where  else  "  can 
be  found  a  more  beautiful  narrative,  full  of  such  intrinsic  truth." 
"Weisse  alone,  where  others  have  been  pervaded  by  reverential 
astonishment,  has  taken  oifeuse  and  found  fault,  (ii.  p.  272.) 
V.  4,  5.  Did  not  the  feet-washing  at  other  times  precede 
the  supper  ?  We  remark  in  reply,  that  the  fact  that  they  had 
already  gone  to  the  table,  by  no  means  implies  necessarily  that 
this  washing  did  not  precede  their  eating ;  it  was  customary  to 
wash  the  outstretched  feet  as  the  guests  lay  upon  the  cushions,  as 
in  Luke  vii.  38.  i!^ow,  there  has  been  the  most  decided  recog- 
nition on  all  sides,  that  what  is  uttered  Luke  xxii.  26,  27,  has 
reference  to  the  transaction  here  under  consideration,  (Olshau- 
sen,  Gfrorer,  Neander ;)  supposing  this  view  to  be  correct,  we 
are  to  suppose  an  order  in  the  events  like  the  following: 
Christ  had  already  lain  down ;  as  they  had  no  servants,  the  feet- 
washing  should  have  been  done  by  one  of  the  Disciples ;  the 


320  Chap.  Xm.  — v.  6-11. 

things  necessary  for  it  are  at  hand ;  the  Disciples  are  still  dis- 
puting who  shall  undertake  to  do  it;  Jesus  no  longer  remains 
duaxei/jLsvo::,  (Luke  xxii.  27,)  but  rises  himself  to  perform  this 
duty  of  a  servant.  "With  such  a  depicture  of  minutiae  as  love 
would  suggest,  we  have  brought  before  us  even  his  taking  upon 
him  the  apparel  of  a  servant :  "  laid  aside  his  garments  and 
took  a  towel  and  girded  himself;"  the  word  "began,"  rjp^aTOy 
paints  the  gradual  course  of  the  action,  the  wiping  of  the  feet 
points  to  its  completion. 

V.  6-9.  The  words  do  not  involve  the  idea  that  Peter  was 
the  first.  So  characteristically  and  so  consonantly  with  the  pre- 
vious delineation  of  him  is  this  Disciple  here  depicted,  as  De 
Wette  also  acknowledges,  that  it  would  involve  gross  blindness 
to  regard  scenes  like  this  as  fictitious.  That  feeling  of  distance 
from  the  Lord,  that  at  the  very  beginning  displays  itself  in 
Peter  in  so  heart-moving  a  form,  (Luke  v.  8,)  is  aroused  here 
also,  when  he  beholds  at  his  feet  the  "  Son  of  the  living  God." 
2u  is  emphatic,  the  present  vinreti;  is  employed  in  regard  to  the 
contemplated  action,  as  x,  33.  Mtza  rouro  may  refer  to  the  ex- 
planation given  in  v.  14,  but  Grotius,  Lampe,  not  without 
probability,  suppose  it  to  refer  to  a  later  period  of  his  life, 
when  in  the  light  given  by  the  Holy  Ghost  the  action  in  all  its 
sio-nificance  will  become  clear  to  him.  If  this  utterance  was  a 
natural  one,  there  mingles  nevertheless  in  Peter's  second  ex- 
clamation something  of  self-will.  Calvin :  Laudabilis  quidem 
modestia,  nisi  quovis  cultu  potior  ohedientia  esset  apud  Deum, 
"  A  praiseworthy  modesty,  were  it  not  that  with  God  obedience 
is  better  than  all  service."  The  answer  of  our  Lord  is  not  so 
excessively  severe  as  to  make  it  necessary  with  Olshausen  to 
refer  vlipto  to  a  spiritual  washing.  The  meaning  of  the  formula, 
//£/>oc  £/£fv  fJitza  Tcvoi;,  which  is  to  be  explained  less  by  reference 
to  Luke  xii.  46,  than  by  the  Hebrew  phrase  3  'h  pSn.  t^:,  (Gesen- 
ius,  Thes.  s.  v.  p'^n,)  is  this:  "to  participate  with  any  one  in 
something."  De  Wette  in  adopting  the  sense :  "  Thou  hast  no 
fellowship  with  my  lowly  frame  of  mind,"  is  neither  sustained 
by  the  usage  of  the  Hebrew  phrase,  nor  by  the  context.  Gro- 
tius more  correctly :  Non  eris  particeps  meorum  bonorum, 
"thou  shalt  not  partake  in  my  blessings."  Maldonatus : 
Renuncio  amicitiae  tuse,   "I  renounce  thy  friendship."     The 


Jesus  avashes  his  Disciples'  feet.  321 

change  to  an  expression  of  the  very  opposite  character  per- 
fectly corresponds  with  the  sanguine-choleric  vehemence  of 
Peter.  Chrysostoni :  xai  iu  zf/  rrayaiz/^nzc  (T(fody6^,  xac  iu  zfj 
auf^ioyijatc  aifooinKzoo^  ycuzzac,  kxdztua  nk  ic  dyaTZTj^^  " In  his 
deprecation  he  was  vehement,  m  his  yielding  more  vehement, 
but  both  came  l'n)m  his  love."  As  this  expression  reveals  that 
no  thought  Avas  so  fearful  to  him  as  that  of  being  sundered 
fi'om  the  Lord,  v.  10  now  presents  a  recognition  of  his  devotion 
on  the  part  of  Christ. 

V.  10,  11.  First  of  all  let  it  be  noticed,  that  Xoua&ac,  in 
contradistinction  from  vinztad-ae^  signifies  not  "washing,"  but 
"bathing,"  nSoq,  and  refers,  therefore,  to  the  purification  of 
the  entire  body,  and  not  of  a  portion  merely.  Sometimes  a 
bath  was  taken  before  a  meal,  and  on  leaving  the  bath  the  feet 
again  became  soiled ;  now  if  Jesus  and  his  Disciples  had  bathed 
that  evening,  these  words  may  be  regarded  as  simply  furnishing 
the  reason  why  the  feet  only  needed  to  be  washed  at  that  time, 
(Heumaun,  Tittmann,  De  Wette,)  and  the  figurative  language 
first  comes  in  with  xai  biiti^  xzh  But  if  the  words,  "clean 
every  whit,"  xa&apbt;  oXo^,  are  to  be  taken  in  a  physical  sense, 
does  not  the  direct  linking  on  of  the  thought,  "ye  are  also 
spiritually  pure,"  seem  too  abrupt?  Most  writers,  therefore, 
give  also  to  the  first  words  of  the  sentence  a  figurative  sense, 
either  exclusively  or  at  the  same  time  with  a  literal  one.  In  v. 
8  already,  some  had  found  a  symbolical  meaning  intimated  and 
the  washing  designated  as  a  sacramental  action  :  "  K  I  w^ash 
thee  not  by  baptism,  from  sin,"  (Origen,  Augustine,  Lampe ;) 
in  this  place,  where  we  have  not  merely  vcTtzeiu  but  ?Musa&a:, 
this  mode  of  apprehension  is  yet  more  obvious  ;  the  Reformed 
expositors,  however,  as  Lampe,  Cocceius,  substitute  for  baptism 
the  regenerative  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  washing  of 
the  feet  is  then  the  daily  forgiveness  of  the  sins  of  infirmity, 
or  according  to  the  Catholic  apprehension,  the  sacrament  of 
penance,  poenitentia.  But  as  the  words  are  at  the  same  time  an 
answer  to  v.  9,  the  proper  sense  cannot  be  abandoned.  It  is,  to 
be  sure,  merely  problematical  that  Jesus  and  his  Disciples  had 
bathed,  but  there  is  no  difficulty  in  supposing  a  reference  to 
what  usually  occurs,  as  when  a  person  comes  from  the  bath  it 
is  common  for  him  to  have  need  afterward  to  wash  his  feet, 


322  Chap.  XIU.— v.  12-19. 

yet  is  otherwise  clean,  thus  the  heart  of  the  inner  man  is  pure 
in  you,  (Neander.)  If  even  the  action  had  not  been  intended 
to  have  the  symbolical  meaning,  yet  this  very  exclamation  of 
Peter  which  preceded  it,  in  which  were  so  beautifully  revealed 
the  pure  depths  of  his  soul,  and  at  the  same  time  was  brought 
out  the  contrast  between  this  genuine  Disciple  and  the  be- 
trayer— this  very  exclamation  must  have  given  occasion  to  this 
turn  of  it.  His  declaration  had  shown  anew  how  thorough 
was  the  internal  hold  which  Christ  had  upon  him,  (vi.  68,  69,) 
now  he  who  had  received  Christ's  word  so  deeply  into  his  inner 
nature  was  pure,  (xv.  3,)  only  the  extremities  were  yet  to  be 
purified,  it  was  ouly  needful  that  the  internal  principle  should 
unfold  itself  further  and  penetrate  the  whole  man,  while  in  the 
case  of  a  Judas  this  principle  was  wholly  wanting.  In  these 
words,  as  in  the  whole  scene  of  love  in  which  he  too  was 
allowed  to  be  a  partaker,  there  was  for  Judas  a  final  persuasion 
and  warning. 

V.  12-17.  Now  follows  the  meaning  strictly  had  in  view  in 
the  feet  washing.  In  the  mouth  of  the  Disciples,  6  xiipco^  corres- 
ponded with  the  title  an,  and  dcddaxaXoc:  with  nio  ;  how  decidedly 
Christ  claimed  this  high  position  among  them,  is  shown  by 
Matt,  xxiii.  8.  The  nominative  in  Greek  and  Hebrew  is  also 
used  for  the  vocative.  The  unwillingness  to  perform  the  feet 
washing  had  been  on  the  side  of  the  Disciples  an  "  example," 
uTrodeiyfia,  of  selfishness,  the  action  of  Jesus  was  an  "example," 
bTzbdzcfua,  of  condescending  love ;  it  is  not  therefore  the  deed 
in  itself  considered,  which  is  the  grand  thing,  but  the  tone  of 
mind  exhibited  in  it,  and  the  explanation  given  by  Chrysostom, 
Augustine,  that  humility  is  the  hardest,  and  at  the  same  time 
the  most  characteristic  virtue  of  Christianity,  is  confirmed  by 
the  exhortation  in  v.  17,  as  our  Lord  directs  attention  to  that 
great  chasm,  which  especially  in  the  case  of  this  virtue,  lies 
between  knowing  and  doing.  It  is  clear  that  the  idea  that  a 
sacrament  is  instituted  here,  is  entirely  out  of  the  question,  nor, 
furthermore,  is  the  action  linked  with  a  promise.  As  long  as 
feet  washing  was  rendered  necessary  by  the  use  of  sandals,  it 
was  practiced  as  a  work  of  love,  (1  Tim.  v.  10,)  at  a  later 
period,  it  was  retained  as  a  suggestive  s^'mbolical  rite — first  of 
all,  in  conformity  with  a  reference  of  v.  10  to  baptism,  it  was 


Jesus  washes  his  Disciples'  feet.  323 

annexed  to  the  ceremony  of  baptism/  then  as  a  repetition  in  the 
strict  sense  of  the  original  S3'mbolical  action,  was  used  in  the 
Church  of  Rome,  in  which  the  Pope  and  Catholic  monarchs,  on 
Maunday  Thursday,  performed  it  on  twelve  poor,  old  men.  The 
remarks  of  Bengcl  may  always  have  a  fitness  as  regards  this : 
Magis  adrairandus  foret  pontifex,  unius  regis  quam  duodecim 
pauperum  pedes  seria  humilitate  lavans,  "the  Pope  would  do 
a  more  remarkable  thing,  if  in  unfeigned  humility  he  washed 
the  feet  of  one  king,  than  he  does  in  washing  the  feet  of  twelve 
poor  men,"  and  yet  there  glides  into  the  mind  what  Claudius  so 
beautifully  says  of  ceremonies  that  have  become  empty :  "  They 
are  the  little  flags  which  reach  forth  over  the  water,  and  mark 
where  a  ship  with  her  rich  lading  has  sunk."  Luther  on  Gen. 
xliii.  24,  commends  in  a  case  of  actual  necessity,  the  washing 
of  feet,  as  an  act  of  love ;  in  the  Moravian  fraternity,  the  ques- 
tion whether  it  shall  be  performed,  or  not,  is  left  to  the  deci- 
sion of  the  stewards  of  the  particular  divisions,  (Chore.) 

V.  18,  19.  The  thought  previously  aroused  in  regard  to 
Judas  once  more  strikes  our  Lord,  but  why  and  for  what  end 
is  Uyto  introduced  ?  Does  it  point  to  the  fiaxdpioc  ?  (Maldon- 
atus,  Bengel.)  Yet  this  expression  is  used  conditionally  and  of 
the  future.  It  has  in  view  the  entirely  reciprocal  relation  of 
ministering  love,  which  could  have  no  applicability  in  the  case 
of  Judas.  The  recent  expositors  pass  too  lightly  over  the 
i^eh^d/jtr^v.  Does  Christ  intend  to  say,  that  one  of  them  does 
not  belong  to  the  chosen  ?  But  he  says  the  reverse  in  chap.  vi. 
70:  "Have  I  not  chosen  you  twelve,  and  one  of  you  is  a 
devil?"  It  would  seem  at  first  view  as  though  the  idea  of 
Augustine,  Calvin,  Zwingle,  was  justified;  it  looks  as  though 
ixUyer^  was  here  employed  in  an  emphatic  sense,  "  to  choose  to 
true  fellowship,  to  salvation."  But  would  the  citation  that 
follows  be  in  that  case  introduced  with  d//'  ?  The  divine  ordi- 
nation would  then  in  fact  be  a  notion  coordinate  with  the  pre- 
ceding. We  would  then  be  compelled  with  Maldonatus  to 
interpret:  Quomodo  ignorare  possum  quales  sint,  quos  elegi, 
"how  could  I  be  ignorant  what  kind  of  persons  they  would 
be  whom  I  have  chosen?"     The  reflection  on  the  divine  ordi- 

1  After  tlie  fourth  century,  the  feet  of  the  newly  baptized  vrere  washed,  Augus- 
tine, Ep.  119,  ad  Jan.  c.  18,  Bingham,  Autiq.  Eccles.  iv.  p.  304 


324  Chap.  Xni.  — v.  20-26. 

nation  would  then  serve  to  produce  a  tranquilizing  influence, 
(see  on  xii.  38.)  After  dXld  we  must  supply  iyivezo,  in  the 
same  way  exactly  as  in  xv.  25,  1  John  ii.  19.  The  quotation 
from  the  Psalm,  (Ps.  xli.  10,)  speaks  of  a  treacherous  revolt  on 
the  part  of  a  table  companion,  that  is,  of  a  most  intimate 
friend ;  the  lifting  up  of  the  heel  refers  to  the  kick  of  a  horse, 
(an  image  of  similar  character  is  used  in  Gen.  xlix.  17.)  Here, 
in  fact  the  language  is  used  of  one  who  arose  from  the  supper 
of  love  to  consummate  an  act  of  betrayal,  who  so  far  from 
washing  the  feet  of  his  Master,  lifted  up  the  heel  against  him ; 
hereby,  too,  Christ  has  become  like  David  his  type  and  ances- 
tor. 'ATzdpTi,  in  classic  usage  "just  now,"  so  the  Ethiopic. 
The  fulfilling  of  prophecy  a  seal  of  the  Messiahship,  xiv.  29, 
also. 

V.  20.  So  little  connection  subsists  between  this  and  the 
preceding  sentence,  that  there  has  been  a  disposition,  with 
Gabler,  Kuinol,  to  regard  it  as  a  gloss  taken  from  Matt.  x.  40, 
but — laying  aside  the  want  of  evidence — it  is  too  decided  a 
difference  in  the  expression.  Marked  sentences,  too,  of  the 
same  sort,  as  may  easily  be  shown,  were  repeated  by  Christ  on 
different  occasions,  (see  on  xii.  25,  Matt,  xviii.  4,  cf.  here,  also, 
V.  16  with  XV.  20.)  The  prevalent  opinion,  in  confirmation  of 
which  Olshausen  appeals  to  xv.  20,  seq.  (?)  is,  that  as  the  trial 
mentioned  in  v.  18  pertains  to  the  Disciples  as  well  as  to  the 
Master,  it  was  his  design  to  furnish  encouragement,  (Melanc- 
thon,  Grotius  ;)  but  on  that  supposition  the  thought  seems  to 
be  too  isolated  and  abrupt,  so  that  it  might  be  said  with 
Liicke :  "  The  thought  of  the  betrayer,  of  which  Jesus,  by  the 
train  of  thought  entered  on  v.  20,  would  rid  himself,  agitates 
and  interrupts  him  anew."  Zwingle,  Heumann,  regard  it  as 
his  aim  in  presenting  this  glorious  aspect,  to  keep  back  the 
other  Disciples  from  an  imitation  of  the  apostasy ;  according  to 
Piscator,  Calvin,  is  shown :  Injustum  esse,  ut  quicquam  ex 
dignitate  apostolica  imminuat  quorundum  impietas,  qui  in 
ofi&cio  perperam  versantur,  "that  it  would  be  unjust  to  detract 
from  the  apostolic  dignity,  because  some  who  held  it  were 
guilty  of  acts  of  wickedness." 


Departure  of  the  Betrayer.  325 


Departure  of  the  Betrayer  from  the  circle  of  the 
Disciples.  —  v.  21-30. 

V.  21-26.  It  is  in  keeping  with  Christ's  character,  that  the 
thought  of  the  faithless  Disciple  mightily  agitates  his  inmost 
soul.  It  comes  out  yet  more  distinctly  in  v.  21  than  in  v.  10 
and  18,  and  in  v.  26  is  exj-tressed  in  the  most  direct  manner. 
We  must  suppose  from  v.  27  that  the  presence  of  the  hetrayer 
was  oppressive  to  the  Holy  One  of  God,  and  that  the  declara- 
tions were  indirectly  designed  to  cause  him  to  depart.  The 
question  rises,  did  he  leave  before  the  institution  of  the  Sup- 
per ?  The  other  Evangelists  make  no  mention  of  his  depart- 
ure, but  what  Matthew  says,  xxvi.  30,  31,  and  the  fact  that 
Judas  does  not  until  a  later  period  (v.  47,)  return  again  to  the 
circle  of  the  Disciples,  implies  that  he  did.  In  Matthew  and 
Mark,  the  scene  of  the  conversation  in  regard  to  the  betrayer, 
which  corresponds  with  the  account  in  John,  precedes  the  Sup- 
per, but  Luke,  who,  however,  has  much  that  is  not  precise  in 
the  history  of  the  Passion,  places  it  after  the  Supper,  (Luke 
xxii.  21.)  As  we  must  suppose  the  feet-washing  to  have  taken 
place  at  the  beginning  of  the  meal,  and  these  discourses  are 
closely  connected  with  it,  we  must,  in  consonance  with  Matthew 
and  Mark,  suppose  that  they  preceded  the  institution  of  the 
Sacrament,  a  view  which  is  confirmed  by  the  fact,  that  v.  31, 
seq.  form  a  suitable  introduction  to  the  institution.  A  conclu- 
sion could  less  safely  be  drawn  from  what  is  said  in  tr.  Pesa- 
chim,  c.  10,  and  Maimonides  in  Lightfoot,  on  Matt.  xxvi.  26, 
in  regard  to  the  order  of  eating  the  Passover.  After  partaking 
of  the  Passover,  two  of  the  bread-cakes  were  solemnly  conse- 
crated, and  wrapped  about  with  bitter  herbs  were  dipped  into 
the  sauce,  with  which  part  of  the  meal  the  breaking  of  the 
bread  in  the  Lord's  Supper  would  most  naturally  connect  itself. 
If  the  (^uoacop,  V.  26,  is  to  be  interpreted  by  reference  to  this, 
that  feature  of  the  institution  certainly  would  not  be  very 
remote.  Yet  even  in  advance  of  the  eating  of  the  Passover, 
herbs  and  parsley  were  dipped  in  the  sauce  and  handed  about. 
The  guests  lay  at  the  table  supporting  their  heads  with  the  left 
arm,  which  rested  on  the  cushion,  enabling  the  next  person  to 

29 


326  Chap.  XIH.  — v.  27-35. 

lean  the  back  of  his  head  upon  the  breast  of  the  one  who 
reclined  by  him.  Just  as  characteristic  of  Peter  as  the  delinea- 
tion is  vivid,  is  the  curiosity  of  this  Disciple  to  know  to  whom 
the  Saviour  alluded  aa  his  betrayer.  "When  Strauss,  from  the 
preeminence  assigned  to  John  in  this  picture,  draws  proof  that 
the  author  of  this  Gospel  was  an  intriguer,  who  designed  to 
give  by  it  a  preponderance  to  the'  party  of  John  over  that  of 
Peter,  we  can  only  designate  the  author  of  such  a  fancy  as  a 
Rabulist,  (pettifogging  pleader.)  The  reading  in  v.  24,  found 
in  Cod.  B  C  L  and  Origen,  is  worthy  of  remark :  xai  Uyec  ahzlii' 
ecnk,  Tc(;  i(jTci>,  Tzspt  ob  Uysi,  which  implies  that  Peter  presumed 
that  John  was  already  in  the  secret. 

V.  27-30.  Up  to  this  moment  we  may  suppose  that  there 
was  a  vacillation  in  the  soul  of  the  betrayer,  whether  he  should 
execute  his  agreement  or  not ;  the  increasing  distinctness  of  the 
declarations  of  our  Lord  may  have  been  in  correspondence 
with  the  increasing  distinctness  of  the  purpose  within  the  heart 
of  Judas,  and  not  until  now,  when  his  determination  to  give 
up  his  Lord,  fully  ripened,  is  fixed  in  his  soul,  (James  i.  15.) 
can  Jesus  no  longer  endure  his  presence.  On  the  comparative 
rdyiou,  where  we  would  look  for  the  positive,  (1  Tim.  iii.  14, 
Acts  xvii.  21,)  see  Winer,  p.  219,  (Eng.  tr.  p.  191.)  If  we 
are  to  imagine  not  merely  that  the  words  of  Jesus,  v.  27, 
but  his  declaration  also,  v.  26,  were  spoken  aloud,  we  must 
interpret  v.  28  under  the  supposition  that  the  Disciples  did  not 
anticipate  so  speedy  a  performance  of  the  deed  of  darkness, 
or  at  least  did  not  dare  to  suppose  that  these  words  of  the  Lord 
which  summoned  Judas  to  the  deed,  were  to  be  referred  to  it. 
On  V.  29,  see  above,  p.  313.  It  was  night  when  the  betrayer 
departed — certainly  before  midnight,  for  the  Paschal  Supper 
could  not  be  prolonged  beyond  midnight,  (tr.  Pesachim,  x.  9.) 
Olshausen  observes,  that  the  words,  "it  was  night,"  rju  de  vu^y 
arouse  in  the  reader  a  reflection  on  the  affinity  between  the 
deed  of  Judas  and  the  time  and  hour,  but  had  the  Evangelist 
designed  this,  he  certainly  would  have  used  the  word  ffxoua, 
(darkness.) 


Discourse  op  Jesus  after  Judas'  departure.        327 

Discourse  of  Jesus  after  the  departure  of  the  Betrayer. 

V.  31-38. 

V.  31-33.  !N"ow  the  decisive  moment  has  been  reached  as 
regards  the  cup  of  suffering,  and  at  the  same  time  as  regards 
the  glorification  of  God  through  Christ  in  humanity ;  Olshau- 
sen  truly  says :  "We  are  entering  into  the  Holy  of  Holies  in  the 
Passion  history.  To  what  a  pitch  of  exaltation  we  must  sup- 
pose the  Saviour's  mind  to  have  risen,  is  shown  by  the  antici- 
pation of  the  entire  future  which  lies  in  the  word  "  now,"  wv^  a. 
future  which,  as  v.  33  renders  still  more  clear,  already  stood 
before  his  soul  as  a  thing  of  the  present,  (cf.  xvii.  11,)  al- 
though immediatel}''  afterward  the  future  is  again  used.  In 
what  consists  the  being  "  glorified?"  Must  we  not  regard  the 
do^anjioz,  which  is  here  spoken  of  in  the  proleptic  aorist,  as  the 
same  of  which  v.  32  speaks  in  the  future  ?  Most  assuredly — 
here,  too,  chap.  xii.  28  is  to  be  compared.  Bengel :  Jesus 
passionem  ut  breve  iter  spectat  et  metam  potius  prospicit, 
"Jesus  regards  his  sufferings  as  a  short  journey,  and  loves  to 
look  at  the  goal."  As  now  he  who  becomes  partaker  of  that 
glorification  is  the  same  person  who  utters  in  regard  to  him- 
self the  expressions,  xiv.  11,  xvii.  21,  it  is  of  course  not  the 
glorification  of  the  human  subject  isolated  from  God  that  is 
meant,  but  rather  this  subject  that  is  reflected  in  God  himself. 
The  glorification  of  God  in  Christ  is  God's  becoming  manifest 
in  the  world  through  him ;  the  glorification  of  Christ  in  God  is 
Christ's  becoming  hidden  in  him.  According  to  Coloss.  iii.  3, 
also,  Christ  is  "hid  in  God,"  according  to  Acts  iii.  21,  he  is  at 
present  hidden  in  heaven,  according  to  both  passages  there  is 
to  follow  upon  this  latency  the  yet  higher  grade  of  "  appearing 
in  glory,"  <pavtp(i)&7^vac  iu  oo^rj. — The  napa^  chap.  xvii.  5,  is  in 
substance  the  same  as  iv  in  this  place.' — On  v.  33,  cf.  what  we 
have  said  on  \\\\.  21.  In  this  expression  we  do  not  perceive  a 
special  object,  but  simply  the  utterance  of  sorrow  over  the  neces- 
sity of  separation. 

v.  34,  35.  The  question  arises,  whether  we  can  find  a  point 
in  this  discourse  at  which  to  introduce  the  institution  of  the 
Lord's  Sapper.     The  expositors  remark  a   grooving   between 

1  Olshausea  feels  himself  obliged  in  v.  31  to  give  the  preference  to  that  inter- 
pretation of  the  phrase,  "  Son  of  man,"  6  vide  ^oii  uv&ijuttov,  which  has  been  main- 
tained by  us  on  chap.  i.  52. 


328  Chap.  XUL  — v.  3-3-33. 

V.  32,  34,  35  and  36,  jet  it  is  possible  to  exhibit  a  connection, 
and  the  supposition  that  all  was  uttered  in  immediate  succes- 
sion, is  admissible.  The  presumption,  however,  is  pressed 
upon  our  notice,  that  v.  34  may  refer  to  the  Lord's  Supper  and 
may  be  connected  with  the  institution  of  it,  (Xeander,  Krabbe.) 
— 'WTien  the  expositors  confined  their  view  merely  to  the  first 
half  of  V.  34,  they  felt  a  doubt  as  to  the  sense  in  which  a  com- 
mand could  be  called  new,  which  was  found  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, and  pronounced  by  Christ  to  be  the  greatest  in  the  Old 
Covenant,  (Matt.  xxii.  36,  38.)  Some  attempted  to  meet  the 
difficulty  by  giving  to  Aatvf^  the  unusual  sense  of  "  excellent," 
(Suicer,  TVolf,)  or  of  "ever  becoming  new,"  (Olshausen,  who 
appeals  to  1  John  ii,  8,  2  John  5,)  or  adverbially,  "  renewed- 
ly,"  (Maldonatus;)  others  vindicated  it  by  narrowing  the  sphere 
to  which  the  commandment  refers,  regarding  it  as  given  exclu- 
sively for  the  circle  of  the  Christian  Church,  (Grotius,)  or  ex- 
clusively for  the  Apostles,  (Heumann,)  or  with  reference  to  the 
obligation  of  the  Christians  both  of  Gentile  and  Jewish  origin 
to  love  one  another,  (Le  Clerc.)  It  was  acknowledged  already 
by  Cyrill  and  Theophylact,  that  the  newness  lies  in  "as  I  have 
loved  you,"  xa&oj::  /jdzr^cra  Oua^,  cf.  xv.  12,  but  there  is  a  want 
of  justness  in  this  interpretation,  if  it  is  understood  to  mean 
that  this  command  is  antithetical  to  the  Old  Testament  com- 
mand of  love  to  our  neighbor,  Cyrill :  fxi/lcov  ai^a^alutcv  e:^ 
obpa'yoh^,  d^tfiihov  -tva  T.av-o^  dya&ob  zbv  rijc  dydrcTj^  zpoxava^dXlz- 
zou  >6uo>,  dydTzr^;  oi  o\)  z7j^  xazd  <^6/jlou,  dA/.d  z7^^  0-kp  loiioii.  ^ Ex-I 
fikv  ydp  zb  \4j-a7:rj(Tsi:;  zbv  TzXyja'tov  tt»c  kaozbv,  Ivza'j&a  os  zb,  xa'9oj^ 
■/jyd~r^aa  upu^,  o'r/^  di^  ka'jzbv  dXX  u~sp  eauzov,  "Being 
about  to  ascend  into  the  heavens,  he  lays  as  a  foundation  of 
all  good  the  law  of  love,  of  a  love  not  according  to  the  law, 
but  of  a  love  above  the  law.  For  there  it  stands :  '  Thou  shalt 
love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself,'  but  here,  '  as  I  have  loved  you,' 
not  then  as  thyself,  but  above  thyself."  But  is  it  not  rather  true, 
that  alike  in  an  impure  and  a  pure  self-love  exists  a  desire  that 
others  should  be  ready  to  sacrifice  themselves  for  us,  so  that 
"to  love  our  neighbor  as  ourself  "  embraces  on  our  part  an  act 
of  sacrifice  of  this  very  sort  ?  There  lies  then  in  these  words 
no  antithesis  to  the  Old  Testament  command,  but  if  Christ  in 
applying  in  general  this  word  "  new"  to  the  "  commandment," 
as  he  does  to  the  "  covenant  "  in  the  Lord's  Supper,  has  used 


Discourse  of  Jesus  after  Judas'  departure.        329 

it  with  a  reference  to  the  Old  Covoniint,  it  expresses  distinction 
merely,  not  antithesis.  The  Old  Testament  may  be  diversely 
interpreted,  the  objective  ideal  of  absolute  love  has  first  given 
it  concrete  shape.  Here  absolute  self-renouncing  love  appears, 
the  love  of  the  high  and  holy  for  the  lowly  and  sinful,  (Horn.  v. 
6,  1  John  iii.  16,)  the  love  which  regards  it  as  more  blessed  to 
give  than  to  receive,  (Acts  xx.  35,)  the  a^^embracing  love. 
Though  the  discourse  points  merely  to  the  love  of  the  Disciples 
to  one  another,  yet  their  love  was  to  be  like  that  of  Jesus  to 
sinners,  a  love,  therefore,  which  was  to  extend  itself  beyond 
their  own  narrow  circle.  It  may  be  a  matter  of  inquiry,  how- 
ever, whether  Christ  did  not  at  the  same  time,  if  not  exclusive- 
ly, refer  to  his  own  earlier  instructions,  (Bengel,  Knapp,  ISTean- 
der;)  his  death,  which  was  so  close  at  hand,  would  furnish  the 
very  occasion  for  speaking  of  that  which  had  not  previously 
been  the  subject  of  discourse,  (xvi.  4.) — Brotherly  love  in  this 
form  had  never  been  seen  in  the  world,  as  it  presented  itself 
among  these  earliest  confessors,  cf.  Acts  iv.  32,  ii.  4G,  seq. 
Neander's  Denkwiird.  Th.  1,  p.  97,  (Memorials  of  Christian 
Life,  &c.  translated  by  J.  E.  Ryland.  London :  Bohn,  1852,) 
Arnold,  Abbildung  der  ersten  Christen,  B.  3,  and  the  remarks 
on  chap.  xvii.  23.  The  heathen  often  exclaimed  in  amaze- 
ment :  (Tertul.  Apol.  c.  39,)  "  See  how  these  Christians  love 
one  another,  and  how  ready  they  are  to  die  for  one  another  !" 
In  Minucius  Felix,  a  heathen  says  of  the  Christians:  "They 
love  ere  they  know  each  other,"  and  Lucian,  in  Peregr.  says 
derisively  of  the  Christians :  "  Their  law-giver  has  persuaded 
them  all  to  be  brethren." 

V.  36-38.  The  question  of  Peter  seems  to  be  connected 
with  V.  33.  Although  the  following  is,  according  to  the  con- 
nection, simply  a  following  into  blessedness,  yet  we  are  led  by 
ch.  xxi.  22  and  18,  to  find  in  it  an  allusion  to  the  death  by 
martyrdom,  so  that  the  duuaaa:,  perhaps,  embraces  also  an 
ethical  reference.  Without  a  clear  idea  of  the  nature  of  the 
following,  Peter  simply  thinks  that  danger  is  in  the  path,  and 
is  confident  that  he  can  brave  it.  Earnest  yet  forbearing  is  the 
tone  of  the  question  addressed  to  the  Disciple  who  speaks  so 
confidently,  cf.  in  the  synoptical  Gospels,  Matt.  xxvi.  30,  seq. 
Mark  xiv.  26,  seq.  and  especially  Luke  xxii.  31,  seq. 

29* 


CHAPTER   XIV. 


Comforting  Discourses  in  reference  to  His  death. 
V.  1-31. 

It  is  worthy  of  attention,  that  the  manner  of  expression  in 
ch.  xiv-xvi.  has  a  decided  and  peculiar  impress,  whose  prominent 
traits  are  a  childlike  tone,  and  a  certain  suspension  and  diffuse- 
ness  in  the  character  of  the  delineation.  Not  only  do  we  fre- 
quently miss  the  connection  and  progress  of  the  sentence,  but 
even  in  the  separate  sentences,  the  thought,  or  at  least  the  ex- 
pression, (especially  in  xvi.  10,)  is  often  not  clear.  As  the 
peculiarity  of  character  in  these  discourses  renders  them  less 
easy  to  remember,  so  they  actually  give  token  that  they  have 
received  from  John  that  impress  peculiar  to  him,  which  we 
observe  in  his  first  Epistle.  The  conversation  of  a  charac- 
teristic sort,  however,  which  is  intermingled,  xiv.  5,  viii.  22, 
xvi.  17,  and  especially  the  misapprehension,  xvi.  29,  which 
could  not  have  been  invented,  proves  that  we  have  not  before 
us  a  mere  fanciful  subjective  composition.  Throughout  the 
whole,  too,  is  kept  up  a  reference  to  the  separation,  and  it  is 
comprehensible  psychologically,  that  this  point  of  his  history 
would  be  the  very  one  at  which  Christ  (to  use  Knapp's  expres- 
sion,) would  begin  to  speak  with  the  Apostles,  remissiore 
animo  et  familiarius,  ("with  a  freer  mind  and  in  a  more 
familiar  tone.")  No  where  throughout  the  entire  Gospel  has 
the  language  of  Christ  such  perfect  artlessuess,  a  character 
so  adapted  to  the  minds  of  his  Disciples,  as  here,  (xiv.  2,  3,  16, 
18,  21,  23,  xvi.  23,  24,  26,)  as  Luther  says :  "  He  speaks,  as  he 
must,  who  would  charm  and  win  the  simple ;"  in  using  these 

(380) 


Comforting  Discourses  in  reference  to  His  death.    331 

very  expressions,  then,  for  the  purpose  of  doctrinal  theology, 
there  must  not  be  too  anxious  an  adherence  to  the  letter. 

V.  1.  The  Disciples  were  not  indeed  aware  that  their  Lord 
was  approaching  a  violent  death,  but  they  now  knew  and  were 
troubled  at  the  thought  (xvi.  6,)  that  a  separation,  though  it 
were  but  temporary,  was  before  them.  On  the  words  TnaTsosTe 
xtL  Erasmus  already  remarks  that  they  may  be  taken  in  four 
ways,  zcars'jsTS  may  be  taken  both  times  as  imperative  or  as  in- 
dicative, or  the  first  time  or  the  last  as  imperative  or  indicative. 
Luther  translates  both  as  indicative,  Olshausen  takes  the  second 
one  as  indicative  and  as  a  consequence  of  the  first,  in  which 
case,  however,  the  future  would  have  been  used;  the  Vulgate, 
Beza,  Grotius,  with  more  justice,  regard  the  first  as  indicative; 
nevertheless,  whether  it  be  taken  as  a  question  or  not,  the  second 
half  cannot,  without  some  violence,  be  attached  to  the  first. 
It  is  better,  therefore,  to  take  both  as  imperative.  Faith  in 
God  is  faith  in  God's  guidance  and  care,  faith  in  Christ  is 
faith  in  his  word,  (v.  11,)  w^th  a  prominence  of  trust,  (src-) 

v.  2,  3.  At  this  very  point  where  the  discourse  has  so  child- 
like an  air,  the  reader  has  been  led  to  take  up  a  false  impres- 
sion by  overlooking  this  very  artlessness.  "We  put  a  period  after 
e7~ov  du  uiM\j;  because,  however,  the  Greek  and  Latin  expos- 
itors could  not  conceive  of  an  assurance  so  childlike  as  would 
then  lie  in  the  sentence,  (Calvin :  si  me  unum  maneret  ccelestis 
gloria,  noUem  vos  frustrari,  "  if  glory  in  heaven  awaited  me  alone, 
I  would  not  have  deceived  you,")  they  connected  d  ok  fxrj  — 
totlov  bfuv^  and  the  reading  of  a  number  of  important  \vitness- 
es,  by  which  an  o-ci  is  put  before  T.opz'jonat,  has  arisen  from  this 
interpunction,  and  from  the  interpolation  of  an  6tc  relativum 
after  zl-ov,  to  give  a  clearer  meaning.  This  reading,  however, 
gives  no  clear  sense  whatever,  see  Lampe,  Knapp.  The  dis- 
course perhaps  glances  back  in  a  comforting  manner  to  xiii.  33 ; 
the  assurance  that  there  is  room  enough  there,  belongs  to  the 
domain  of  childlike  conception,  and  cannot  well  be  resolved 
into  a  distinct  thought,  as  is  the  case  also  with  the  words,  "I 
will  come  again,"  Ttdhv  Ip-f^oiim,  which  the  old  inteqireters 
referred  to  the  general  judgment,  here  represented  as  close  at 
hand,  at  which  Christ  was  to  come  for  those  raised  from  the 
dead,  and  Olshausen  and  Lucke  interpret  of  liis  coming  again 


832  Chap.  XIV.— v.  4-9. 

by  the  Holy  Ghost:  "every  advance  in  spiritual  communion 
with  the  glorified  Redeemer  augments  in  his  Disciples  the  surety 
of  the  life  of  heavenly  blessedness."  On  the  other  hand,  in  the 
words  "to  prepare  a  place,"  zd-rtov  kzoc/maai,  we  may  observe  a 
fundamental  idea,  as  Christ  also  is  the  mediator  of  the  heavenly 
bliss,  Calvin :  natura  exulat  humanum  genus  a  regno  coelorum, 
"  mankind  by  nature  live  in  exile  from  the  kingdom  of  heaven." 
V.  4-6.  They  might  now  have  known  that  the  Father  in 
heaven  was  the  goal,  and  death  the  path  to  that  goal,  but  ac- 
customed as  they  were  to  the  figurative  character  of  Christ's  dis- 
courses, they  are  not  certain  as  to  his  meaning  here,  and  Thomas, 
intelligent  and  reflective,  expresses  this  not  without  some  agita- 
tion, in  the  words,  "If  we  knew  the  goal  we  might  perhaps 
surmise  the  way."  The  fourth  verse  had  indeed  spoken  merely 
of  the  path  and  goal  of  Christ;  as  the  Disciples,  however, 
have  the  same  path  and  the  same  goal,  and  as  the  question  of 
Thomas,  too,  perhaps,  also  carried  an  allusion  to  this,  Christ  an- 
swers by  giving  a  new  turn  to  the  thought,  and  now  designates 
the  Father  as  the  goal,  and  himself  as  the  way — to  wit :  for  the 
Disciples.^  Many  regard  ^ojt]  as  the  leading  idea,  as  for  exam- 
ple, Grotius,  who  explains  636^  as  the  exemplar,  alrjd^ua  as  the 
doctrine,  ^cdt^  as  the  goal  and  issue;  according  to  the  connection, 
however,  the  leading  idea  is  rather  j  boo:;,  as  the  explanatory 
ouosk:  xXt.  shows ;  too  strong  a  distinction  is  drawn  between  the 
three  ideas,  when  with  Luther  (viii.  p.  71,  ed.  Walch,)  and 
Calvin  we  interpret:  "Ego  sum  principium  (rudimenta  fidei,) 
medium  (perfectio  fidei)  et  finis  (beatitudo,)  "I  am  the  begin- 
ning, (the  elements  of  faith,)  the  middle,  (the  perfection  of  faith,) 
and  the  end,  (blessedness  in  heaven.)"  On  the  other  hand, 
however,  it  blends  them  too  much,  with  Tittmann  and  Kuinol, 
to  connect  d^d^eca  merely  adjectively  with  o^oc,  "^Ae  true  way 
to  ^2/6,"  Augustine :  vera  et  vitalis  via,  "  the  true  and  life-giving 
way."  WXi^&eca  and  ^.a^-q  rather  express  the  mode  in  which 
Christ  is  the  way,  so  that  we  may  compare  Hebrews  x.  20, 
where  Christ  is  called  bob;;  ^coffa,  inasmuch  as  he  is  the  life- 
giving  way  to  the  Father.     Zwingle  :  Qui  in  Christo  ambulat, 

1  Fritzsche,  Opusc.  p.  105,  in  order  to  avoid  the  supposition  of  a  turn  in  the  dis- 
course, takes  a  wholly  different  view,  according  to  which  the  connection  between  v.  5 
and  G  is  this:  "He  who  is  the  way  to  God  as  I  am,  clearly  must,  when  he  departs 
from  men,  go  to  God,  and  this  can  only  come  to  pass  by  his  laying  off  mortality." 


Comforting  Discourses  in  reference  to  His  death.    333 

nee  falli  nee  mori  potest,  "he  who  walketh  in  Christ  can 
neither  be  deceived  nor  die."  From  this  then  it  follows,  that 
true  union  with  God  must  always  be  through  Christ  as  its  con- 
dition, (1  John  ii.  23,  2  John  9;)  De  Wette,  not  improperly, 
adds :  "  The  particularistic  principle,  that  no  man  cometh  to 
the  Father  but  through  Christ,  in  its  bearing  on  thosd  who  have 
never  known  him  as  an  historical  personage,  is  softened  by  the 
fact  that  he  is  also  the  Eternal  (ideal)  Logos." 

V.  7.  ' Eyu(6x£{Z£,  not,  with  Luther  and  Kuinol:  "if  ye 
knew,"  but  "if  ye  had  known."  It  is  indeed  singular  that 
immediately  on  this  our  Lord  seems  to  ascribe  this  knowledge 
to  them.  When  indeed  we  compare  the  prces.,  e.  g.  in  verses 
17,  19,  the  presumption  offers  itself  that  here,  too,  Yiv(of7X£Ts 
and  kwpdxaTs  are  to  be  taken  in  the  sense  of  the  future,  that 
d-dnrc  means  "from  henceforth,"  and  that  \h.Q-mc  before  drApn 
is  adversative ;  but  in  ktopaxazs  the  perfect  excites  a  doubt,  so 
that  Chrysostom  and  Lampe,  though  they  take  yiuaxTxevs  as 
future,  yet  in  hopdxare  adhere  to  the  meaning  of  the  perfect, 
Chrysostom  :  "  Soon  will  ye  know  him,  and  ye  have  already 
seen  him,  (to  wit :  without  knowing  him.)"  Maldonatus,  and 
more  recently  Fritzsche,  decide  that  the  taking  the  meaning  as 
future,  is  entirely  inadmissible ;  but  is  a  prophetic  prolepsis  of 
this  sort  less  admissible  here,  than  with  do^aa&ri,  v.  13  ? 
(Kuinol,  Liicke.)  Still  there  is  another  mode  of  taking  it 
which  answers  better,  not  indeed  as  it  is  presented  in  Olshau- 
sen,  but  as  we  have  it  in  Calvin,  Maldonatus,  Grotius:  dTcdpzi 
in  the  sense  of  "even  now,"  Calvin:  Deum  illis  jam  nunc 
conspicuum  patere,  si  modo  apcriant  oculos,  "  God  would  now 
be  revealed  to  them,  if  they  would  but  open  their  eyes."  An 
addition  of  this  sort  conveying  a  reproof,  connects  better  with 
the  preceding,  than  a  promise  full  of  hope  would,  and  6 
kcopaxcix; — rrazipa,  v.  9,  may  then  be  regarded  as  a  resumption. 

V.  8,  9.  As  the  Disciple  does  not  understand  in  what  sense 
the  Father  had  alread}^  been  seen  by  him,  he  desires  such  a 
manifestation  as  the  prophets  had ;  the  dpxe7  /j/juu  has  not  indeed 
the  same  depth  of  meaning  as  Ps.  Ixxiii.  25,  but  exhibits  an 
artless  pious  heartiness.  In  virtue  of  the  unity  with  God, 
expressing  itself  in  Christ's  will,  knowledge,  and  power,  our 
Saviour  had  already,  ch.  viii.   19-42,  pointed  to  the  fact  that 


334  Chap.  XIV.  — v.  10-14. 

the  invisible  Father  was  to  be  seen  in  him,  Bengel :  Sicut 
anima,  quse  per  se  non  cernitur,  cernitur  ex  eo,  quod  ilia  per 
corpus  agit,  etc.,  "  as  the  soul,  in  itself  invisible,  is  seen  by 
what  it  does  through  the  body." 

V.  10,  11.  In  regard  to  the  reciprocal  relation  in  this  unity, 
see  on  x.  38.  Christ  points  to  the  two  manifestations  by  which 
they  should  recognize  the  unity,  to  wit:  the  words  and  the 
works.  The  want  of  congruity  between  the  affirmative  portion 
of  the  proposition  and  the  negative  is  striking,  as  instead  of 
7:octi  xa  Iftya  we  would  expect  lalEl  za  pQiiaza.  Calvin,  Nosselt, 
and  others,  have  from  this  circumstance  understood  ipya  to  mean 
doctrina,  but  we  have  already  recognized  it  as  a  peculiarity  of 
John,  that  his  counter  propositions  do  not  always  exactly  cor- 
respond, (cf.  on  viii.  28,)  at  times  the  substance  of  the  second 
proposition  goes  beyond  that  of  the  first  and  embraces  it,  see 
especially  1  John  i.  6,  7 ;  it  is,  consequently,  allowable  with 
Bengel,  Liicke,  De  Wette,  to  suppose  that  za  ipfa  comprehends 
the  XaXtiv.  But  a  difficulty  by  no  means  slight  presents  itself 
in  V.  11,  where  the  ipya  are  mentioned  in  antithesis  to  the  doc- 
trine, and  ahzdy  "the  very  works,"  seems  to  strengthen  the 
assumption  that  ipya  in  v.  10  must  have  exactly  the  same 
meaning,  (compare  besides  x.  38.)  Although  now  we  are  will- 
ing to  allow  their  full  force  to  the  objections  urged  by  Fritszche, 
(opusc.  p.  109-114,)  against  a  strict  limitation  of  the  idea,  (in 
opposition  to  Liicke,  who  appears,  however,  completely  to  have 
overlooked  them,)  yet  we  cannot  assent  to  the  interpretation 
given  by  him,  (and  still  earlier  by  Grotius :)  "  I  speak  not  of 
myself,  but  the  Father  doeth  the  miracles  which  serve  for  con- 
firmation ;"  for,  1)  di,  which  clearly  marks  an  antithesis,  is  thus 
looked  upon  as  merely  a  connecting  word;  were  it  so  used 
here,  then  the  ipya,  in  order  to  be  perspicuous,  would  absolute- 
ly require  tlie  addition  of  something,  as  perhaps,  divinse  lega- 
tiones  documenta,  (proofs  of  a  divine  mission ;)  2)  for  consist- 
ency's sake,  then,  the  meaning  of  "  miracle  "  is  retained  by 
Fritszche  in  v.  12  also,  and  psc^oua  would  then  express  a 
promise  of  more  extraordinary  miraculous  acts.  We  suppose 
that  even  in  a  writer  unlike  John  it  would  not  seem  too  strange 
entirely,  that  the  same  word  should  be  used  successively,  in  a 
broader,  and  then  with  an  allusive  particle  indeed,  in  a  narrow- 


Comforting  Discoukses  in  reference  to  His  death.    335 

er  sense,  but  still  less  can  this  excite  surprise  in  the  case  of  a 
style  whose  character  is  so  blending  as  John's. 

V.  12-14.  The  discourse  takes  anew  the  direction  of  conso- 
lation, and  the  childlike  form,  as  at  the  beginning  of  the  chap- 
ter. The  going  to  the  Father  corresponds  to  the  sitting  at  the 
right  hand  of  God,  w^hich,  in  accordance  wath  the  Old  Testa- 
ment usage,  occurs  in  the  first  Evangelists,  (Mark  xvi.  19.)  It 
designates,  consequent!}-,  the  entrance  on  the  fullness  of  divine 
power,  from  which  results  the  enlarged  influence  of  Christ 
upon  the  world  through  the  agency  of  his  Disciples,  a  thought 
which  had  been  expressed  before,  iv.  38,  xii.  32,  and  is  found 
again,  xvi.  10,  while  the  thought,  that  the  Disciples  would  one 
day  do  more  remarkable  miracles,  has  nothing  analogous  else- 
w-here.  "We  would  say,  therefore,  that  ipya  has  the  same  mean- 
ing here  as  in  v.  11,  "  miraculous  works,"  nevertheless,  (in  the 
same  sense  in  which  Lessing  once  said,  that  we  are  amply  in- 
demnified for  the  want  of  Christ's  miracles,  by  seeing  his 
prophecies  in  regard  to  the  Church  fulfilled,)  the  foundation 
of  the  Church  itself  may  be  designated  as  the  greatest  of 
miracles.  If  we  only  recall  to  our  minds,  that  the  number  of 
Disciples  w^iom  Christ  left  upon  earth  hardly  comprehended 
more  than  six  hundred  and  twenty,  (one  hundred  and  tw^enty 
in  Jerusalem,  five  hundred  in  Galilee,)  that  on  the  other  hand, 
the  result  of  the  preaching  on  Pentecost  alone  was  the  conver- 
sion of  three  thousand  souls,  this  expression  does  not  seem 
surprising.  Thus  Luther :  "  The  Apostles  and  Christians 
would  advance  further  in  their  operations  than  Christ  did,  and 
bring  more  to  him  than  he  had  done  while  in  the  body  on 
earth. — Every  single  Christian  is  (through  faith)  such  a  man  as 
Christ  the  Lord  himself  was  upon  earth,  and  executes  such 
great  things  that  he  can  govern  the  whole  world  in  divine 
matters." — The  medium  of  such  great  operations  is  the  prayer- 
ful exaltation  of  believers  to  God  in  the  name  of  the  ascended 
Saviour.  On  iy  ovbiiarc  roi>  Xpiazoo,  compare  Ilarless,  Brief  an 
die  Epheser,  p.  483,  seq.  ^  Ovofia  is  the  sum  of  a  personality, 
"Wahl  intei'prets  -co  wo^a  ''  Ir^aou :  "Jesus,  with  all  the  ideas  and 
all  the  memories  connected  with  his  name."  To  speak,  pray 
in  the  name  of  any  one,  that  is,  having  him  present  to  the 
mind,  having  reference  to  him,  and  in  the  case  before  us  the 


336  Chap.  XW.—y.  15-19. 

reference  may  be  of  a  subjective  sort:  "in  trust  upon  Christ, 
and  having  his  mind,"  and  of  an  objective  sort:  "looking  to 
the  aim  he  had,  and  to  his  kingdom."  The  designation  of  the 
object  of  prayer  by  o,  n  dv,  is,  indeed,  altogether  a  general  one, 
nevertheless,  all  the  objects  of  life  should  be  settled  with  a 
reference  to  the  kingdom  of  God.  Already  by  his  desire  that 
prayer  should  be  offered  in  his  name,  on  which  still  more  stress 
is  afterward  laid  in  chap.  xvi.  24,  Christ  claims  for  himself  the 
mediation  through  which  prayer  is  heard,  a  claim  still  more 
strongly  put  forward  in  the  words,  "that  will  I  do,"  iycb  Tronjaco. 
The  necessity  for  this  mediation  is  apparently  excluded  in  chap, 
xvi.  26,  27,  but  this  appearance  is  simply  the  result  of  the 
childlike  mode  of  expression,  for  in  fact  the  mediation  lies  in 
that  which  in  v.  27  of  that  very  passage  is  given  as  the  reason 
for  which  they  will  be  heard. 

v.  15-17.  Another  fruit  of  the  departure  to  the  Father,  is 
the  sending  of  the  Spirit  mediated  ("I  will  ask,"  ipcoryjaco,)  and 
conditioned  by  it,  (xvi.  7,  Acts  ii.  33,  cf.  on  John  vii.  39.)  This 
Spirit  is  designated  here,  and  in  xv.  26,  xvi.  13,  as  the  Spirit  of 
truth,  7[VEd[ia  tyj^  d?.y^d^eiai;,  that  is  the  Spirit  who  is  the  principle 
of  truth  and  imparts  the  truth,  (xvi.  13,)  consequently  the  gen. 
vossess.  et  effect.;  this  truth,  however,  is  not  a  power  for  the 
intellect  merely,  but  for  the  feelings  and  the  will  also,  and  this 
Spirit  is  consequently  called,  v.  26,  "the  Holy  Spirit,"  to  ttu.  to 
dycov.  Bengel:  Veritas  omnes  in  nobis  virtutes  veras  facit, 
"truth  makes  all  true  virtues  in  us."  This  Spirit  is  distinct 
from  the  personality  of  Christ,  is  "another  comforter,"  aXXoz 
TtapdxXv^To^,  and  yet  in  v.  18  he  is  again  conceived  of  as  iden- 
tical with  Christ,  for  he  is  the  power  emanating  from  the 
personality  of  Christ,  ix  too  ifiou  ?.ij<peTa:,  says  xvi.  14.  This 
Spirit  will  become  so  immanent  in  the  Disciples,  that  he,  as  we 
are  told  in  Matt,  xxviii.  20,  of  Christ  himself,  shall  be  with  them 
"forever,"  £:c  top  alibva.  This  promise  is  enhanced  in  v.  17,  by 
the  observation,  that  as  man  is  partaker  of  this  Spirit  only  by 
fellowship  of  life,  the  world  has  no  means  of  receiving  him ;  as 
Ifcvwaxtc  is  definitely  distinguished  from  d^topti  by  obde,  we  may 
understand  by  the  latter  the  perception,  by  the  former  the 
knowledge.  That  the  present  tenses  follow  immediately  on 
this,  is  singular ;  the  future  ioTac,  it  is  true,  according  to  Gries- 


Comforting  Discourses  in  reference  to  His  death.    337 

bach,  alternates  with  them,  but  testimonies  by  no  means  light, 
read  iazcv^  it  is  therefore  probably  the  so  called  absolute  prses. 
which  is  here  used,  which  expresses  the  circumstance,  without 
reference  to  a  particular  time.  On  the  idea  expressed  by 
TzaofixXr^TO^,  the  Treatise  by  Knapp  (Script,  var.  arg.  p.  128,) 
deserves  a  reference.  The  first  signification  of  TiapaxaXiiv,  is  to 
call  hither^  then  to  call  to  one,  to  exhort^  to  comfort.  Theodoras 
Mopsue.,  Ernesti  and  Michselis,  adopted  the  meaning  of  instruc- 
tor, Erasmus  and  Luther  introduced  that  of  comforter,  a  meaning 
which  has  also  been  defended  by  Van  Hengel  in  his  adn.  ad 
!N"ov  Testamentum,  Amsterd.  1824,  p.  40,  seq.  The  former  is 
philologically  inadmissible,  the  latter  certainly  suits  ver^'-  well 
here,  cf.  v.  18,  but  does  not  suit  in  v.  26,  xv.  26,  xvi.  7,  8.  In 
1  John  ii.  1,  the  meaning  of  "helper"  is  the  acknowledged 
one,  which  is  deduced  from  the  originally  passive  form  of  the 
word,  (compare  the  Latin  advocatus;)  it  is  current  in  the  legal 
phraseology  of  the  Greek,  (see  Reiske's  Index  to  Demosthenes,) 
is  found  in  Philo,  (see  Losner,)  and  must  have  been  very  widely 
in  use  in  the  time  of  Christ,  as  the  word  has  gone  over  into  the 
Rabbinic  also.  This  meaning  suits  in  all  the  other  passages, 
and  here  suits  throughout,  especially  when  we  keep  in  view 
that  Christ  calls  himself  their  previous  rzapdxXrjzo!;,  and  in  v. 
18  says,  he  will  not  leave  them  orphans.^ 

V.  18,  19.  The  words  sound  as  though  the  distinction  be- 
tween the  Paraclete  and  Christ  is  removed,  for  inasmuch  as  he 
returns,  in  order  that  they  may  not  be  left  orphans,  he  returns  as 
a  Paraclete.  There  are  three  modes  in  which  ipyojmai  may  be 
taken,  and  it  is  important  to  adopt  the  right  one.  At  v.  3,  some 
writers  had  already  thought  that  a  return  to  the  final  judg- 
ment is  meant,  and  the  same  view  is  entertained  here  by 
Augustine  and  Maldonatus,  although  the  latter  does  not  deny 
the  difficulty  lying  in  the  fact  that  v.  23  indisputably  must 
be  understood  of  the  adventus  gratise.  Most  of  the  Greek 
expositors,   as  well  as  Erasmus,  Beza  and  Ileumann,  under- 

1  Since  Herder,  (Christl.  Scliriften.  Samml.,  iv.  p.  8G,  seq.)  this  possession  of 
the  plenitude  of  the  Holy  Spirit  has  been  reduced  to  the  idea  of  an  inspiration,  a 
word,  however,  which  designates  every  exaltation  of  emotion,  whether  that  emotion 
be  pure  or  false,  so  that  in  using  it  we  still  remain  in  the  sphere  of  subjective 
humanity ;  but  tlie  Holy  Ghost  is  the  emanation  from  Christ  in  his  exaltation,  and 
his  utterance  is  not  merely  that  of  exalted  emotion;  the  expression  spirilualing 
will  correspond  better  with  the  idea. 

30 


338  Chap.  XIV.  — v.  20-26. 

stand  the  return  of  Christ  at  his  resurrection,  a  view  favored 
by  the  fxcxpov,  and  still  more  by  xvi.  16,  20,  21.  Nevertheless, 
we  feel  ourselves  compelled  to  declare  decidedly  for  the  view, 
in  which  we  are  preceded  by  Luther,  Calvin,  Lampe,  Flatt, 
(Symbolse  ad  ev.  lohn.  p.  ii.,)  the  view  which  refers  it  to  the 
spiritual  coming  through  the  Paraclete,  and  (for  the  present 
leaving  out  of  view  the  reasons  derived  from  ch.  xvi.)  we  would 
merely  observe,  1)  that  the  connection  with  v.  21,  23,  28, 
leads  to  this  view,  2)  that  {^-jaead-s:,  v.  19,  on  the  opposite 
view  would  not  allow  of  an  explanation  equally  satisfactory,  3) 
that  the  dogmatic  development  of  the  idea  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
does  not  readily  allow  any  other  mode  of  apprehension.  There 
comes  then  in  the  Paraclete  another  than  Christ,  and  yet  also 
Christ  himself.  Bengel:  Venio,  non  redeo,  adventus  primi 
continuationes  sunt  cseteri  potius  quam  iterationes,  "I  come,  not 
I  return,  the  other  advents  are  rather  continuations  of  the  first, 
than  rejjetitions  of  it."  Mcxpbv  xai,  after  the  Hebrew  )  £3;?q,  so 
that  xai  is  for  ore,  as  in  the  classics  also  xai  in  similar  connection, 
(Viger,  ed.  Herm.  p,  109.)  Zaj  first  only  of  physical  life,  the 
present  not  in  place  of  the  future,  but  as  a  designation  of  time 
present,  including  the  past,  (see  on  viii.  25;)  we  may  most 
appropriately  compare  Revelations  i.  18,  where  the  emphatic 
predicate,  "  he  that  liveth,"  6  ^ajv,  is  explained  by  the  words,  ^cov 
e/c  Toh^  auovai;  rcov  aicbvcDV,  "I  am  alive  forevermore ;"  ^rjatadz, 
too,  is  then  to  be  taken  in  the  same  sense,  thougli  here  the 
spiritual  reference  may  also  be  included. 

V.  20,  21.  A  view  of  the  effect  of  his  exaltation,  similar  to 
that  which  our  Lord  had  given,  viii.  28,  in  speaking  of  its  in- 
fluence on  his  enemies ;  the  promise  that  we  have  here,  how- 
ever, embraces  more  than  that,  for  it  implies  that  they  should 
know  him  by  experience  as  an  internal  principle,  and  v.  21 
gives  prominence  to  the  conditions  of  the  internal  perception 
of  Christ.  Although  the  love  which  John  defines  is  common- 
ly considered  as  only  a  bliss  of  seusibilit}^,  yet  it  is  in  John 
preeminently  that  the  moral  feature  of  love,  the  unity  of  will 
with  the  object  beloved,  is  constantly  made  prominent  in  the 
strictest  manner,  (1  John  iii.  18,  24 ;)  s/wv,  Augustine :  Qui 
liahet  in  mcmoria  et  servat  in  vita,  "he  that  hath  them  in  his 
memory  and  heepeth  them  in  his  life." 


Comforting  Discourses  in  reference  to  His  death.    339 

V.  22-24.  Another  of  the  interruptions  which  testify  to  the 
historical  character  of  these  communications.  Judas  Thadde- 
us,  (Matt.  X.  3,)  who  did  not  understand  the  spiritual  nature  of 
that  revelation,  and  conformably  to  the  current  view,  expected 
a  manifestation  of  Messiah  in  glory  before  the  whole  world,  is 
astonished  that  this  revelation  is  to  be  confined  to  the  limited 
circle  of  the  Disciples  who  serve  him.  Kai  in  a  question,  as  in 
ix.  36.  On  the  phrase,  ri  yiyovtv  ozi,  Liicke  remarks,  that  the 
Hebrew  character  has  been  falsely  imputed  to  it  by  Grotius, 
but  the  evidencQ  that  such  is  its  character  is  found  in  Ecclesias. 
vii.  10 ;  for  the  Greek,  cf  Kypke,  Observ.  The  reply  of  our 
Lord,  which  especially  in  the  negative  part  is  devoid  of  formal 
exactness,  is  properly  only  an  impressive  repetition  of  v.  21, 
that  his  manifestation  does  not  take  place  in  an  external  man- 
ner, as  that  of  a  spirit  perhaps,  but  by  an  internal  appropriation. 

V.  25,  26.  The  discourse  already  verges  to  its  close,  (v.  30.) 
"What  yet  remains,  our  Lord  commits  to  the  teaching  of  the 
Spirit,  who  will  come  "in  his  name,"  i.v  rw  ovoimzc  abrou,  that 
is,  as  his  representative.  As  the  words,  dc8d~ec,  "he  will 
teach,"  and  mofxvijatt^  "bring  to  remembrance,"  are  placed 
here  side  by  side  with  each  other,  it  seems  that  the  Spirit  will 
also  teach  something  new,  in  the  same  way,  xvi.  12,  16,  with 
which  XV.  15  is  not  in  conflict.  Now  on  the  one  side  the 
Church  of  Rome,  on  the  other,  as  Calvin  has  observed,  the 
Fanatics  and  Pantheists,  have  with  this  word  of  our  Lord  sup- 
ported themselves  in  the  assumption,  that  a  promise  has  been 
given  of  a  continued  revelation,  whether  through  the  Church 
as  its  organ,  or  through  individuals.  To  cut  off"  this  interpre- 
tation, Grotius  has  referred  the  di  elrrou  to  the  Tzavra,  which 
diodes:  governs,  Calvin  and  Gerhard  have  taken  xai  as  explan- 
atory. First  of  all  let  it  be  noted,  that  Tzdvra  is  not  to  be  taken 
in  a  perfectly  universal  sense,  but  refers  only  to  what  has  gone 
before,  cf  on  xvi.  13,  xv.  5,  and  it  may  be  then  conceded  that 
the  ncddztt  designates  a  distinct  feature  from  that  regarded  by 
bzoavTifnc,  but  after  all,  it  merely  amounts  to  the  question, 
whether  the  blade  in  its  relation  to  the  seed,  the  stalk  in  its 
relation  to  the  root,  is  to  be  called  something  else,  or  the  same. 
This  much  is  fixed  and  follows  especially  from  xvi.  14,  that  the 
Spirit  will  only  unfold  what  Christ  has  already  given  in  prin- 


340  Chap.  XIV.  — v.  27-29. 

ciple,  cf.  also,  1  John  ii.  27,  and  observe  how  Paul,  in  opposi- 
tion to  those  who  would  complete  Christianity  from  without  by 
philosophical  tenets,  urges  the  fact,  that  all  the  treasures  of  wis- 
dom lie  hidden  in  the  counsels  of  redemption,  (Coloss.  ii.  3.) 
Hence,  also,  especially  the  controversial  attacks  of  the  Lutheran 
theologians  upon  the  Church  of  Kome  were  directed  not  so 
much  against  the  novelties  of  teachings  as  such,  as  against 
these  novelties  in  so  far  as  they  were  out  of  harmony  with  the 
original  ground.  AYe  say,  therefore,  that  diod^ei  certainly  refers 
to  the  doctrines  of  the  propitiation,  of  the  Church,  &c.,  which 
were  not  stated  in  detail  by  Christ  himself,  and  u-o/ji^ijasc  to 
that  invigorating  influence,  in  virtue  of  which,  what  they  had 
heard  at  an  earlier  period  presented  itself  in  new  freshness 
to  the  souls  of  the  Apostles. 

V.  27.  Amid  the  storms  which  lowered  before  them,  their 
inward  peace  would  prove  abiding,  resting  as  it  did  on  this, 
that  Christ  had  overcome  the  world,  (x\n.  33 ;)  when  then,  after 
his  resurrection,  as  it  were  with  a  peace  won  by  struggle,  he 
stood  among  them,  it  was  with  the  words  so  full  of  significance, 
dprjvTj  bixlv.  Peace  be  unto  you,  (xx.  19,  21,  26;)  in  virtue  of 
the  peculiar  fountain  of  this  peace,  its  own  nature  is  peculiar, 
a  fact  pointed  out  by  the  words,  "not  as  the  world  giveth," 
o^j  xa&cb::  xtL  So  peculiar  was  this  very  blessing  esteemed,  that 
"grace  and  peace,"  /a,o^c  ^«f  ^'■P'^i'^'O-,  became  the  form  of  saluta- 
tion among  Christians.  It  is  possible  that  the  form  was  usual 
in  bidding  farewell ;  in  the  Old  Testament,  it  is  true,  "  peace  be 
to  you,"  D^^^  Dojy,  was  used  as  a  form  of  comforting,  but  in  the 
Rabbinical,  "to  give  peace,"  diSbj  jnj,  means  "to   greet,"  tr. 

Pirke,  Aboth.  c.  4,  in  Arabic,  .^cbLwJ}  JLS,  "he  spoke  the 
peace,"  is  equivalent  to,  "he  took  his  departure,"  and  in  the 

Syriac,  ').>,.js>-^  V^\0QDOl«)i,  "they  gave  each  other  peace," 
(Assem.  Bibl.  Orient,  i.  p.  376.) 

Y.  28,  29.  In  the  preceding  verses  Christ  had  expressed 
the  thought,  that  his  departure  to  the  Father  was  something  to 
be  desired  for  the  Disciples'  sake,  (xvi.  7,)  now  he  mentions  the 
consequence  of  that  event  as  to  his  own  person,  cf.  the  expres- 
sion of  his  longing  after  a  return  to  the  Father,  in  chap.  xvii. 
5.     The  words,  "  my  Father  is  gr eater ,  ftsc^cup,  than  I,"  has  been 


Comforting  Discourses  in  reference  to  His  death.    341 

made  an  important  support  for  the  Arians  and  Socinians.  The 
orthodox  polemical  theology  has  replied  in  three  modes;  a 
number  of  the  Anti-Nicene  fathers,  and  Athanasius  himself, 
vindicate  the  inferiority  from  the  relation  of  the  Father  as 
"unhegotteii,"  dyswr^ala,  and  of  the  Logos  as  generated,  and 
with  them,  of  recent  date,  Olshausen  concurs;  Augustine  refers 
to  the  distinction  between  God  incarnate  and  God  in  himself; 
Chrysostom  justifies  the  expression  as  one  of  accommodation 
to  the  infirmity  of  the  Disciples.  When,  however,  after  the 
Reformation,  the  doctrine  of  the  status  exinanitionis  and  exal- 
tationis  was  developed  more  fully,  the  iuterpretation  of  Augus- 
tine was  opposed,  on  the  ground  that  the  inferiority  must  con- 
sist in  something  which  the  return  of  Christ  to  the  Father 
would  fully  remove,  consequently,  not  in  the  humanity  itself, 
but  only  in  the  humanity  in  its  state  of  lowliness,  thus  Luther : 
"For  the  kingdom  which  I  shall  receive  at  the  riglit  hand  of 
the  Father  is  over  all,  and  it  is  better  that  I  should  pass  from 
the  earthly  condition  of  meanness  and  infirmity  into  the  power 
and  dominion  in  which  the  Father  is."  Calvin  :  Non  confert  hie 
Christus  patris  divinitatem  cum  sua,  nechumanam  suam  naturam 
divinre  patris  essentite  comparat,  sed  potius  statum  progsentem 
coclesti  glorire,  ad  quani  mox  recipieudus  sit,  "  Christ  does  not 
here  compare  the  God-head  of  his  Father  with  his  own,  nor  his 
human  nature  with  the  divine  essence  of  the  Father,  but  rather 
his  present  condition  with  that  heavenly  glory,  into  which  he 
was  soon  to  be  received."  [According  to  the  sense,  Storr  cor- 
rectly makes  /isc^cou  equivalent  to  heatior.  There  is  no  refer- 
ence in  it  to  the  ample  protection  which  his  Disciples  and  his 
cause  would  thereby  gain,  (Theophylact,  Euthymius,  Liicke, 
De  Wette,)  for  the  subject  of  discourse  here  is,  that  which  is 
gladdening  as  to  his  own  person. — The  Protestant  interpreters 
explain  it  either  exclusively  of  his  subordination  according  to 
the  human  nature,  inasmuch  as  this  alone  could  go  to  the 
Father,  (Ilunnius,  Gerhard,)  or  of  his  subordination  according 
to  the  status  exinanitionis,  (Luther,  Calvin,  Beza,  Lutiiardt,) 
or  by  a  reference  to  botli,  (Eras.  Schmidt,  Calovius,  Quenstedt.) 
Cf  Suicer,  Thesaurus,  ii.  1368  ;  Quenstedt,  Theol.  didac- 
polem.  i.  374.  Only  the  humanity  as  humbled  can  be  spoken 
of,  for  of  the  exalted  humanity  the  /izc^^cov  in  this  sense  no 
X  30* 


342  OiiAP.  XIV.— V.  30,  31. 

longer  holds  good.  Augustine :  Quia  naturae  humance  gratu- 
landum  est  eo,  quod  sic  assumpta  est  a  Yerbo  TJnigenito,  ut 
immortalis  constitueretur  in  coelo.] — The  repetition  of  the  ex- 
pression, xiii.  19,  does  not  seem  here  in  v.  29  to  have  its  fit 
occasion,  but  we  have  probably  to  gather  from  the  entire  con- 
text of  the  discourse,  that  the  revelation  of  the  power  of  Christ 
in  his  glory  would  furnish  testimony  to  his  dignity. 

V.  30,  31.  The  Redeemer  perceives  in  spirit  the  approach- 
ing steps  of  the  betrayer,  and  sees  in  what  he  does  the  influ- 
ence of  the  Prince  of  the  world,  who  through  him  wishes  to 
overthrow  the  kingdom  of  truth — xai  is  adversative.  'Ev  i/iol 
— oudsu  would  be  most  easily  interpreted  if,  with  De  Wette,  we 
could  venture  to  make  the  phrase,  "he  has  nothing  in  me,"  (er 
hat  nichts  an  mir,)  interchangeable  with  "he  cannot  harm 
me,"  (er  kann  mir  nichts  anJiahen,)  which,  however,  is  not 
allowable  even  in  German ;  Meyer  tries  to  reach  the  same  idea 
by  resolving  the  phrase  thus :  "  in  me,  that  is,  within  reach  of 
my  personality,  he  has  nothing,"  equivalent  to  saying,  "he  has 
no  power  over  me."  As  this  interpretation  also  is  violent,  the 
exposition  which  takes  i^zcv  in  the  sense,  "to  have  influence," 
would  suggest  itself,  were  it  not  that  the  cases  are  rare  in  which 
it  has  this  meaning  without  being  followed  by  an  infinitive,  see 
Passow,  4th  ed.  ii.  p.  588.  K  this  difliculty  be  regarded  as 
weighty,  nothing  remains  but  to  take  i-^^Ecv  as  meaning  "to 
possess,"  and  then  either  with  a  majority  of  the  older  writers, 
supplying  nihil  juris,  (no  right,)  or  to  take  ohosv  in  the  sense 
of  obdhv  I'dcou,  "  nothing  that  he  can  call  his  own,  that  is,  noth- 
ing sinful,"  thus  Augustine,  Olshausen.  But  it  may  well  be 
questioned  whether  we  are  here  to  look  in  John  for  the 
thought  expressed,  Heb.  ii.  14,  that  by  means  of  sin  the 
devil  has  the  power  of  death  over  men.  "We  would  much 
more  naturally  expect  here  tlie  thought  expressed  in  x.  18,  that 
Christ  in  encountering  death  rested  under  no  outward  neces- 
sity to  do  so.  To  this  view  v.  31  leads  us,  where  the  ivvo^ 
"  command  "  is  the  same  mentioned  in  x.  18. 


CHAPTER   XV. 


The  Allegory  of  the  Vine. — v.  1-6. 

The  discourses  that  follow  to  chap  xviiii.  are  connected  with 
each  other ;  that  they  were  uttered  on  the  way  as  they  went  by 
night  out  of  the  city  (Grotius,)  is  hardly  supposahle,  at  least  in 
the  case  of  the  prayer,  ch.  17.  It  thus  seems  probable,  that  in 
the  veiy  intent  of  going,  it  happened,  as  is  wont  with  persons 
about  to  depart,  the  impulse  to  communicate  more  still  detained 
the  Saviour  in  the  room,  (Gerhard.)  "We  may  compare  the 
repeated  forms  of  closing  in  Paul's  Epistles,  for  example  in  the 
Epistle  to  the  Romans. 

V.  1.  To  ever}'thing  that  is  uttered  in  this  chapter,  as  in  the 
allegory  with  which  it  opens,  the  feeling  that  the  hour  of 
separation  has  come,  imparts  its  tone.  Departing,  yet  remain- 
ing— this  is  the  thought  that  lies  at  the  root  of  this  beautiful 
allegory.  "We  may  imagine  that  it  was  suggested  b}''  some 
outward  occasion,  a  vine  perhaps  trailing  by  the  side  of  the 
window.  In  Psalm  Ixxx.  9-12,  also,  the  congregation  of  Israel 
had  been  compared  to  a  vine  nurtured  by  God,  and  sending  its 
tendrils  far  and  wide.  The  natural  relation  between  this  plant 
and  its  branches  shooting  forth  in  all  the  glories  of  their  noble 
fruit,  is  reahzed  in  its  most  perfect  sense  {^  dXr^&evij)  in  the 
sjnritiial  relations  between  Christ  and  those  that  are  his.  That 
which  Paul  says  of  the  mystical  unity  of  the  Redeemer  ^yith  his 
Church,  has  found  its  most  beautiful  expression  in  this  passage 
in  John ;  it  is  impossible  here  to  be  mistaken  in  referring  this 
discourse  to  a  higher  relation  than  that  which  subsists  between 
teacher  and  pupil  in  general ;  it  speaks  of  an  essential  unity 

(343) 


344  Chap.  XV.  —  v.  2-G. 

mediated  through  faith.  The  drapery  is  not  that  of  the  para- 
ble, it  is  no  event  in  history,  but  a  relation  in  the  world  of 
nature  which  is  spoken  of,  and  this  is  employed  from  the  com- 
mencement, to  express  a  spiritual  relation,  so  that  the  literal 
and  figurative  meaning  run  over  into  each  other,  cf.  iv  i/Mc,  v. 
2  and  4.  Under  yscopyo::,  equivalent  to  dix~eloopy6::,  Luke  xiii. 
7,  we  have  here  at  the  same  time  to  find  the  idea  of  a  possessor ; 
the  Father,  who  hath  sent  the  Son  into  the  world,  is  the 
possessor  and  fosterer  of  the  vine  together  with  its  branches. 

V.  2.  There  is  a  distinction  made  between  two  kinds  of 
branches,  unfruitful  and  fruitful,  the  mpzc  in  relation  to  the 
former  is  explained  in  v.  6.  '£v  i//or  cannot  express  the  rela- 
tion as  it  is  in  fact,  but  only  as  it  seems  to  be,  since  a  real 
connection  with  Christ  must  of  necessity  bring  fruit  with  it. 
The  fruit-bearing  of  the  genuine  branches  is  subject  to  the  law 
of  gradual  progression,  and  presupposes  the  fostering  care  of 
God.  This  is  figuratively  designated  by  ;fa{?a/,o£;v,  "to  purify, 
purge,"  (verbal  play  with  o}'pecv,)  by  which  in  the  language  of 
vine-dressers  is  understood  the  '■' deputatio,"  the  pruning  away 
of  the  suckers,  "that  is  the  bastard  or  false  shoots  which  bring 
no  fruit  and  do  nothing  but  waste  the  sap,  which  the  good 
fi'uitful  branches  should  have,"  (Luther.)  In  the  application, 
the  image  may  be  taken  yet  more  strictly,  and  by  giving  prom- 
inence to  the  feature  of  pain  which  cutting  brings,  may  be 
referred  to  purification  through  afiliction,  (James  i.  1-4.)  It 
may  be  asked,  whether  the  fruit-bearing  is  to  be  understood 
ad  extra  or  ad  intra,  whether  of  the  extension  of  the  Gospel 
(Rom.  i.  13,  John  iv.  36,)  or  of  growth  in  spiritual  life.  As 
regards  the  thing,  the  two  are  inseparable,  for  he  that  is  in  the 
light,  will  also  shine;  to  sustain  the  second  of  the  meanings 
we  might  cite  7rocs.7p  oudiv,  (in  v.  5,)  and  v.  8 ;  and  on  the  other 
hand  for  the  first,  v.  16 — but  it  is  in  general  best  not  to  separate 
them.  It  is  very  probable  that  the  Redeemer  had  been  led  by 
the  imperfection  which  was  then  characteristic  of  these  very 
Disciples,  to  point  them  to  growth  under  the  fostering  care  of 
the  Father.     And  this  is  the  thought  which  leads  to  v.  3. 

V.  3, 4.  As  the  Redeemer,  in  xiii.  10,  11,  had  already  declared 
that  his  Disciples  were  in  the  main  already  pure,  and  needed 
but  the  purifying  of  the  extremities,  he  here  returns  to  this 


The  Allegory  of  the  Vine.  345 

ground.  In  Coloss.  iii.  9,  10,  it  is  also  said  that  they  who  have 
already  put  on  the  new  (viov)  man,  must  continually  become  new, 
{a\^uxacyo-jntvov.)  The  word  received  in  faith,  is  a  principle 
ever  purifying  more  and  more,  (  v.  7,  xvii.  17,  Acts  xv.  9.) 
According  to  Paul's  explication  of  the  doctrine,  we  are  to 
understand  by  this  "word,"  Xoyo::^  especially  "the  word  of  the 
righteousness  of  God,"  Xoyo^  rr^^  5cxacoauvrj:;  zo~j  d^zoo.  As  v.  4 
refers  to  the  necessity  of  remaining  in  Christ,  (viii.  31,)  it  con- 
tains at  the  same  time  an  allusion  to  the  necessary  unfolding 
of  that  principle.  Kayco  iu  uju7v  at  first  seems  to  be  capable  of 
no  other  construction  than  as  a  promise,  (Euthymius,  Calvin, 
Liicke,)  but  if  we  consider  v.  5,  the  sense  of  the  Evangelist 
seems  to  be  that  which  is  given  by  Bengel :  Facite,  ut  maueatis 
in  me  et  ut  ego  maneam  in  vobis,  "  so  act  that  ye  may  remain  in 
me  and  that  I  may  remain  in  you."  Augustine  thus  expresses 
the  diversity  in  their  mutual  relation :  Ita  in  vite  palmites  sunt, 
ut  viti  non  conferant  sed  inde  accipiant,  unde  vivant;  ita  vero 
vitis  est  in  palmitibus,  ut  vitale  alimentum  subministret  eis, 
non  sumat  ab  eis,  "the  branches  are  in  the  vine  not  so  as  to 
impart  anything  to  it,  but  so  as  to  derive  their  life  from  it;  the 
vine  IS  in  the  branches  in  such  a  way  as  to  minister  to  them 
the  vital  aliment,  not  in  such  a  way  as  to  receive  it  from  them." 
V.  5,  6.  A  strengthened  expression  of  the  same  thought. 
The  abiding  in  Christ  through  faith  is  so  necessary  a  oondition 
to  the  bringing  forth  fruit,  that  the  one  is  not  possible  without 
the  other.  That  o'jdiu  is  not  to  be  taken  as  absolutely  universal, 
but  is  to  be  limited  to  the  sphere  of  religion,  and  particularly 
to  inward  and  outward  activity  in  the  kingdom  of  God,  is  self- 
apparent  in  this  passage,  as  in  a  similar  restriction  of  Tzduza  in 
1  John  ii.  20.  The  result  of  not  abiding  in  him  is  made  yet 
more  obvious  than  it  had  been  by  olpsi  in  v.  2.  The  withered 
branch  is  used  as  fuel,  (Matt.  vi.  30,)  in  which  may  lie  an  allu- 
sion to  the  fire  of  hell,  similar  to  that  in  Ileb.  vi.  8,  and  then 
the  words  "he  is  cast  forth,"  ^Iti&7^v(u  e^co,  correspond  with  the 
separation  of  the  bastard  wheat  mentioned  in  Matt.  xiii.  41. 
The  aor.  l^Xr^d^/j  and  i^r^ctdvi^/j,  explained  by  Grotiusas  designa- 
ting "what  is  usually  done,"  are  rather,  as  also  ido^dad-^,  v.  8, 
to  be  interpreted,  as  has  been  done  by  Kiihner:  (ii.  p.  78,) 
"  The  aorist  like  the  perfect,  but  with  far  greater  emphasis,  is 


346  Chap.  XV.  — y.  7-17. 

used  to  designate  future  events,  of  whose  impending  occurrence 
the  speaker  is  as  lirmly  convinced  as  he  is  of  facts  that  have 
already  occurred." 


Further  Promises  and  Exhortations  in  regard  to  abiding 
IN  Christ. — v.  7-17. 

y.  7, 8.  If  a  connection  between  v.  7  and  8  is  to  be  established, 
it  must  be  this,  that  v.  8  subjoins  the  reason  of  the  promise  in 
V.  7.  The  medium  through  which  the  fruit-bearing  of  the 
Disciples  is  brought  about  is  faith,  and  prayer  is  an  essential 
exhibition  of  that  faith,  (xiv.  13.)  The  hearing  of  prayer  is 
promised  to  the  widest  extent,  but  nevertheless  has  its  limita- 
tion, in  the  fact  that  only  such  prayer  is  spoken  of  as  proceeds 
from  inmost  union  with  Christ,  and  herein  consequently  lies 
also  a  direction  how  to  pray.  In  i.do^da&r],  as  we  have  observed 
on  V.  6,  there  is  a  prolepsis  of  the  future.  If  we  take  \'va  after 
the  relative  more  strictly,  we  must  find  in  the  verb  the  idea  of 
striving ;  see,  however,  v.  12,  and  what  is  said  on  vi.  50.  Instead 
of  fzvqaza&z^  Lachmanu  reads  xivTja&e,  which  is  supported, 
however,  by  testimony  so  slight  as  to  stamp  it  at  once  as  a 
mere  marginal  correction;  the  xai  is  the  xai  of  sequence,  "and 
so  will  ye  be."     On  the  dative  i/^o/,  cf  Winer^  p.  198. 

V.  9-11.  An  explanation  more  at  large  in  regard  to  the 
nature  of  remaining  in  Christ,  and  in  v.  11  a  statement  of  the 
object  of  the  previous  discourse.  The  relation  of  love  between 
Christ  and  his  Disciples  is,  acccording  to  v.  10,  an  ethical  one, 
it  rests  on  the  same  ethical  basis  as  the  love  of  the  Father  to  the 
Son,  (viii.  29,)  for  dy6.7i/j  rj  iiirj  cannot  mean  amor  mei,  "love  of 
me,"  (Grotius,)  consistently  either  with  philology  or  with  the 
connection.  In  regard  to  riy/JsTv,  see  remarks  on  viii.  51. — 
Y.  11.  "What  had  been  said  of  their  remaining  one  with  the 
departing  Redeemer,  was  under  these  circumstances  a  source 
of  joy;  in  the  same  way  xvii.  13,  by  which  passage,  too,  the 
^  yapa  ^  ifxq  here  is  to  be  interpreted,  cf.  also,  -q  dpijvvj  -^  i/fly, 
xiv.  27.  As  it  is  with  the  peace  which  he  imparts  and  which 
proceeds  from  him,  so  also  is  it  with  his  joy,  (Calvin,  De 
Wette.)    "^H  xapd  TtX^pouvai,  is  a  phrase  peculiar  to  John,  1 


Further  Promises  and  Exhortations.  347 

John  i.  4,  2  John  12,  found  also  in  his  Gospel,  xvi.  24,  xvii.  13, 
and  expresses  the  absolute  character  of  this  joyousness. 

V.  12,  13.  Among  the  "  commandments,"  iuTo).ac,  men- 
tioned in  V.  10,  that  all-embracing  "commandment,"  ivroylay, 
which  was  delivered,  cliap.  xiii.  34,  is  made  prominent,  and  by 
the  words,  "As  I  have  loved  you,"  xa&co^  /jdnr^aa  bfia^^  v.  13 
is  developed  to  its  highest  capacity.  The  final  proposition  with 
Iva  in  V.  13,  dependent  on  rayrjyc,  serves  here,  as  in  3  John  4, 
to  periphrase  the  infinitive.  To  bring  the  expression  into  con- 
sonance with  Rom.  v.  7,  8,  10,  we  might  say,  that  by  the 
offering  up  of  Christ,  the  Disciples  were  first  converted  from 
enemies  into  true  friends;  yet  John  had  not  this  reference  dis- 
tinctly in  his  mind,  and  the  discourse  certainly  had  in  view 
only  the  relation  of  friends  which  already  existed. 

Y.  14-16.  An  intimation  that  they  were  not  yet  to  the 
fullest  extent  worthy  of  the  exalted  name  of  friends,  but  were 
to  render  themselves  more  and  more  worthy  of  it,  cf  v.  10, 
they  obtained  this  name  for  the  time,  only  because  of  the  con- 
fidential relation  in  which  they  were  united  with  Christ.  The 
words,  "  all  things  that  I  have  heard  of  my  Father  I  have  made 
known  unto  you,"  rAvra — u/i'v,  at  first  seem  to  be  in  conflict 
with  xvi.  12,  but  rather  are  the  words,  "that  I  have  heard," 
3  ^xouaa,  to  be  limited  to  what  the  Redeemer  had  received  to 
impart  to  them  at  that  time,  (xvii.  8.)  The  formation  of  this 
relation  of  friendship  had  originated  with  our  Lord.  The 
ixXopj  is  not  simply  "a  choosing"  to  the  Apostolic  ofiice,  but 
at  the  same  time  "the  choosing  out  of  the  world,"  ixkopj  ix 
rob  xoafjLoo,  (v.  19;)  the  words,  "that  ye  should  go,"  uTidyeiv, 
pertain  only  to  the  picturesque  delineation,  (Matt.  v.  24,  xviii. 
15,)  the  fruit  (whether  in  them,  or  in  others,)  is  of  such  a  sort 
as  to  continue  in  life  eternal,  and  by  it  is  brought  about  so 
intimate  a  relation  with  the  Father,  that  their  prayer  finds 
hearing,  cf.  remarks  on  v.  7. 

Y.  17.  Tauza  (instead  of  touto,  see  Boissonade,  on  Aristren. 
p.  436,)  might  be  referred  to  the  subsequent  proposition  cva  xzX. 
80  that  this  love  among  one  another,  would,  as  it  were,  be  com- 
mended as  a  compensation  for  the  enmity  they  would  encoun- 
ter in  the  world,  and  of  which  v.  18,  seq.  speaks,  but  zauza  in 
John  always  refers  to  what  has  preceded,  (v.  11,  21,  xiv.  25, 


348  Chap.  XV.  — v.  18-27. 

xvi.  1,  25,  33,  xvii.  1,  xviii.  1.)  Thus  then  it  is  rather  the  pre- 
ceding discourses  (and  commandments,)  which  are  once  more 
summed  up  according  to  their  main  scope. 

Enmity  of  the  Wokld  toward  the  Disciples. — v.  18-27. 

V,  18-20.  As  the  principle  which  wrought  in  the  Redeemer 
continues  to  work  through  his  Disciples,  (xvii.  14,)  and  as  for 
the  reasons  mentioned,  chap.  vii.  7,  the  world  encounters  him 
in  a  hostile  manner,  this  experience  is  one  which  the  Disciples 
can  not  be  spared.  The  expression  in  xiii.  16,  is  here  brought 
to  remembrance  in  a  ditierent  application.  Ec,  with  the  indic- 
ative, V.  20,  supposes  two  cases,  without  any  further  indication 
which  of  the  two  will  occur,  v.  21  first  shows  that  the  occur- 
rence of  the  negative  case  is  anticipated. 

V.  21-25.  By  d-iiapr'ta.,  v.  22-24,  is  understood  by  the  ex- 
positors, as  in  ix.  41,  the  sin  of  unbelief,  against  which  view 
De  Wette  urges  the  objection,  that  it  is  self-apparent  that  this 
sin  could  not  have  been  charged  upon  them  if  Jesus  had  not 
come  and  preached.  "We  think  that  it  follows  from  v.  23,  that 
by  6.iia()Tia,  in  v.  22,  is  intended  the  guilt  of  hatred  against 
divine  things  in  general,  so  that  the  connection  of  the  thought 
is  this :  The  hatred  toward  you  rests  upon  aversion  to  me,  and 
this  rests  upon  ignorance  of  the  Father.  Had  I  not  appeared, 
this  io-norance,  and  the  aversion  to  what  is  divine  connected 
with  it,  would  have  been  comparatively  guiltless,  but  after  I 
have  revealed  the  Father  by  my  appearing  and  by  my  instruc- 
tions, they  are  the  more  culpable.  As  in  x.  37,  xiv.  11,  the  works 
are  introduced  as  a  yet  more  striking  testimony,  [za  ipya  forms 
the  climax  to  kXdXfjaa,)  and  these  are  regarded  as  at  once  a  tes- 
timony for  the  Father  and  the  Son,  (xvi.  3.)  In  regard  to  the 
double  xai  in  v.  24,  see  on  vi.  36.  The  quotation  from  Ps.  Ixix. 
5,  in  V.  25,  answers  the  same  end  as  the  one  in  chap.  xiii.  18. 

V.  26,  27.  As  viii.  28  points  to  the  future  for  consolation 
against  the  prevailing  unbelief,  so  also  here,  (xvi.  8.)  That  the 
words,  "which  proceedeth,"  ixTropeusza:,  can  not  be  understood 
of  an  immanent  process  in  the  God-head,  consequently,  can 
neither  be  used  for  nor  against  the  doctrine  of  the  Greek 
Church  in  regard  to  the  "procession  of  the  Holy  Spirit,"  Beza 


Enmity  of  the  ^Vould  toward  the  Disciples.       349 

had  already  observed.  [According  to  the  Ancient  Church,  ^ 
this  ixzopz'j£(T&a:  involves  the  origin  within  the  Trinitarian 
relation,  of  the  essence  of  the  Tzi^sbfia;  the  Greek  Church  taught, 
consequently,  that  dea  r.  ulou,  ix  r.  Trarpb:;  ixTTopsuezai  r.  rtv. 
(Damascenus,  de  fide  orthodox,  i.  12.)  The  Latin  Church,  on 
the  contrary,  as  she  transferred  to  the  procession  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  what  is  said  of  his  sending  from  the  Father  and  the  Son, 
believed  herself  justified  in  adding  thefilioque,  (Gerhard,  Loci, 
i.  127.)  It  may  certainly  be  a  question  whether  the  ixzop.  is 
to  be  conceived  of  as  a  metaphorical  designation  of  relation 
without  reference  to  time,  as  the  Lutheran  interpreters,  (with  a 
few  exceptions,)  and  also  in  our  day,  Olshausen,  Llicke,  Baum- 
garten-Crusius,  regard  it,  or  is  to  be  taken  as  parallel  histori- 
cally with  Tze/uTTsiv,  (Beza,  Cocceius,  Lampe.)  Neither  the  argu- 
ment of  Gerhard  for  the  former  view,  nor  that  of  Lampe 
against  it,  renders  a  decision  secure,  (Twesten,  Dogmatik, 
ii.  241.] — Although  the  "testimony,"  fxapzupia,  of  the  Spirit 
is  mediated  through  the  human  "  testimony,"  iiapvupia,  of 
the  Disciples,  yet  the  latter  is  here  made  coordinate  with 
the  former.  Luther:  "  When  ye  shall  have  been  comforted  by 
the  Holy  Ghost,  and  your  mind  has  been  supported  by  fixed 
truth,  he  will  impel  you  to  testify  of  me.  For  first,  he  will 
give  testimony  internally  in  your  hearts,  and  then  outwardly 
by  miracles  and  through  your  confession  and  preaching." 
Kal — t>i,  "  but  also,"  the  present  ptaprupeTzs,  expresses  the 
enduring  character,  and  is  equivalent  to  pdpzupe^  iaze,  (Acts  i. 
18,)  the  present,  pez'  i/iou  icrzs,  includes  the  past,  as  viii.  25 ; 
with  a;r'  dpyf^::,  cf.  Acts  i.  21,  22,  John  himself  bears  this 
testimony,  1  John  i.  1.  "We  have  here  then  both  the  historical 
argument,  from  which  the  fides  humana  proceeds,  and  the 
testimonium  spiritus,  on  which  the  fides  divina  rests. 


81 


CHAPTER  XVI. 


Christ  announces  more  distinctly  the  persecutions  to  which 
HIS  Disciples  would  be  exposed,  and  comforts  them  by  point- 
ing THEM  TO  THE  WORKING  OF  THE  IIOLY  SPIRIT. — V.  1-15. 

V.  1-3.  Tauza  alludes  to  xv.  18-27,  (of.  remarks  on  xv.  17,) 
there  follows,  however,  an  expanding  repetition  of  the  same 
train  of  thought ;  in  v.  2-4  is  depicted  the  opposition  of  the 
world,  and  then  is  given  the  comforting  reference  to  the  opera- 
tion of  the  Holy  Spirit.  In  v.  2  the  Redeemer,  as  the  words, 
"shall  put  you  out  of  the  synagogues,"  "think  that  he  doeth 
God  service,"  dTtoauvayioyou^  and  Xavpdav  itpoatpipzcv  zco  d^zu) 
prove,  had  in  his  eye  the  species  of  persecution  which  would 
shortly  threaten  his  Disciples,  persecution  on  the  part  of  the 
Jews.  The  less  important  is  the  exclusion  from  the  syna- 
gogue, (ix.  22,)  with  dXXd,  "yet  more,"  (Acts  xix.  2,)  the 
severer  one  is  added,  "ha,  periphrasis  of  the  infinitive,  as  in 
xii.  23,  xiii.  1.  Ilpoffcpipenj,  the  solemn  term  for  the  offering 
of  sacrifice,  so  that  Xazpsia  does  not  thereby  obtain  the  mean- 
ing of  sacrifice,  but  only  a  more  special  reference  to  it.  Inas- 
much as  heretics  were  persecuted  for  tJie  sake  of  God,  the  per- 
secution itself  appeared  as  a  service,  a  worship  of  God.  But 
this  blindness  was  not  guiltless,  inasmuch  as  the  true  know- 
ledge of  God  must  have  led  them  to  acknowledge  the  cause  of 
Christ,  (xv.  23.) 

V.  4-6.  But — that  is,  although  this,  in  their  defect  of  divine 
knowledge,  might  be  expected.  That  Christ  had  not  spoken 
"  at  the  beginning,"  i^  ".pyr^^,  of  these  persecutions,  appears  to 
be  in  conflict  with  Matt.  v.  10,  x.  16.     When  Bengel  replies : 

(350) 


Christ  comforts  his  Disciples.  351 

Dixerat  de  odio  mundi  sed  minus  aperte  et  parcius,  "he  had 
spoken  of  the  hatred  of  the  world,  but  less  open]?/  and  more 
sparinglt/,"  and  when  I  observed:  "Our  Lord  now  dwells  upon 
it,"  De  AVette  gainsays  the  view,  and  says:  "This  belongs  to 
the  husliing  up  style  of  harmony  so  much  in  favor."  Such  a 
declaration,  however,  cannot  be  made  without  the  grossest  mis- 
apprehension of  the  character  of  these  last  discourses,  and 
without  hermeneutic  inconsequence.  This  expositor  himself 
has  repeatedly  acknowledged  the  hovering  character  and  the 
inexactness  in  John's  style,  especially  in  these  last  discourses, 
for  example,  in  x.  26,  xv.  14,  15,  xvi.  5, 10.  It  was  most  natu- 
ral at  the  time  of  Christ's  departure,  that  his  glance  should  be 
particularly  directed  to  the  sufterings  yet  impending,  and  no 
where  else  has  he  spoken  so  repeatedly  and  at  large  of  the 
opposition  of  the  world  to  his  Disciples,  as  in  chap.  xv.  to  xvii. 
That  it  is  the  departure  which  leads  to  these  thoughts  is  shown 
by  the  oti — yjfJtYjV.  In  the  same  way,  too,  on  v.  5,  De  Wette 
remarks,  that  there  is  a  contradiction  to  xiii.  36,  xiv.  5,  and  as 
a  solution  of  the  difficulty  in  this  place,  where  the  Evangelist 
seems  to  come  in  conflict  with  himself,  merely  makes  the 
remark:  "There  is  a  want  of  precision  of  statement,  as  in  x. 
26,  &;c."  Chrysostom  already  attached  to  the  question  of 
Christ,  the  sense :  Hitherto  ye  could  ask  me  so  many  questions, 
and  now  ye  are  dumb  and  plunged  into  sorrow.  Yet  Christ 
does  not  merely  reprove  them  in  a  general  way  for  asking  no 
questions,  but — proceeding  on  his  own  view  of  the  glorious 
issues  of  his  "going  his  way  to  the  Father,"  OTzdysiv  Ttpb^  rbv 
Tzarirju. — he  encourages  them  to  allow  themselves  to  be  absorbed 
in  this  thought. 

V.  7-11.  He  gives  prominence  to  that  result,  which  would 
furnish  the  most  direct  comfort  to  his  Disciples,  as  in  xiv.  12, 
seq.,  XV.  26.  Instead  of  the  a/r/jv,  a//;y'v,  "verily,  verily,"  of  the 
first  of  those  passages,  there  is  here  an  assurance,  in  a  childlike 
form,  of  the  truth  of  what  he  utters,  as  in  xiv.  2.  For  the 
reasons  why  the  coming  of  the  Spirit  has  been  connected  with 
his  departure,  see  remarks  on  vii.  37.  Augustine :  Si  alimenta 
tenera,  quibus  vos  alui,  non  subtraxero,  solidum  cibum  non 
esurietis,  "if  I  should  not  take  away  the  tender  aliment  on 
"which  I  have  fed  you,  ye  would  not  hunger  after  solid  food." 


352  Chap.  XVL  — v.  11. 

The  beneficent  working  of  the  Spirit,  is  first  of  all  that  exten- 
sion of  truth  in  the  world,  of  which  mention  is  made  in  xv.  26, 
since  the  world  will  be  convinced  of  its  own  unbelief,  of  the 
innocence  of  Christ,  and  of  the  absolute  triumph  which  Christ 
is  to  gain  over  the  kingdom  of  evil,  (this  "reproving,"  lltyyoz, 
continually  moves  on  through  the  history  of  the  world,  cf.  the 
present  TZKTzvjooac,)  the  beneficent  operation  mentioned  in 
verses  12,  13,  is  consequently  the  same  spoken  of  xiv.  26,  the 
development  of  the  truth  in  the  Disciples  themselves.  ''EXdwv 
giving  clearness  to  the  representation,  as  in  Eph.  ii.  17.  ^EXi- 
yytiv  designates  a  conviction  on  a  charge  of  wrong,  which,  in 
as  far  as  it  has  that  character,  is  to  be  conceived  of  as  not 
without  a  certain  pain.  Since  Beza,  Bengel,  it  has  been  usual 
to  get  the  more  particular  aim  of  the  three  substantives  in  v.  8, 
by  adding  to  complete  the  sense,  the  subjects  derived  from  v. 
9  to  11,  consequently  "of  the  sin  of  the  world,  of  the  right- 
eousness of  Christ,  of  the  judgment  of  the  prince  of  this 
world,"  TiEpl  b-jiapxlac,  rob  xoafiov,  Tiept  dcxacoaovT^z  rou  Xpcazou^ 
Tvepc  xpiffsco^  Tou  apyo'uroq,  to~j  xoafxou,  according  to  which  inter- 
pretation the  iUyyecv  embraces  the  begetting  of  faith  in  the 
persecutors.  Another  exposition,  in  which  poii  is  not  added  to 
oaacoauvr^::  to  complete  the  sense,  has  again,  at  a  recent  date, 
been  maintained  by  De  Wette.  ' EXijyttv,  according  to  this 
view,  designates  in  part  externally  the  triumphant  preponder- 
ance of  the  truth,  so  that  its  opponents  are  brought  to  shame, 
in  part  internally  the  effecting  of  a  clear  consciousness  of  guilt ; 
tbe  words:  "of  sin,  because  they  believe  not  on  aie,"  ■Jitpl 
b-iiap-iaz,  ore  ou  Titazeuouacv  e^c  ^/^^,  are  intended  to  express  the 
idea,  that  the  world  over  against  the  growing  mass  of  believers,  is 
to  be  exhibited  more  and  more  as  standing  under  the  wrath  of 
God,  and  for  the  very  reason  that  it  believes  not ;  "  of  righteous- 
ness," Tzepl  dcxoMauvYj^,  designates  the  light  and  life  which  Christ 
has  brought  into  the  world,  (the  righteousness,  therefore,  both 
of  Christ  and  of  believers,)  and  which  will  be  carried  on 
by  the  Spirit,  to  victory  ;  the  "judgment,"  xpiaci;,  is  the  result 
of  the  conviction  alike  as  regards  the  "sin,"  S-piapria,  and  the 
"  righteousness,"  dcxcuoa\jvrj.  Calvin,  also,  gives  a  similar  expla- 
nation :  "  The  Spirit,  conformably  to  the  order  of  salvation,  will 
first  work  the  knowledge,  that  out  of  Christ  sin  reigns  in  the 


Christ  comforts  his  Disciples.  353 

world,  then  he  will  work  the  hungering  after  true  righteous- 
ness, that  is  after  justification  by  faitli,  (Matt.  v.  3,  6,)  then 
finally  the  conviction,  that  only  through  Christ  this  want  of 
harmony  may  be  removed."  This  interpretation  can  plead  for 
itself,  especially  the  fact  that  on  the  view  it  presents  it  is  easier 
to  account  for  dcxaco<T'j\^r^^  standing  absolutely,  than  if  after  the 
ordinary  view  we  understand  by  it  the  personal  innocence  of 
Christ,  iu  which  case  a  [idb  could  hardly  be  dispensed  with. 
Xot  a  few  of  the  older  expositors  have  for  this  reason  under- 
stood ucxacoau'^rj^  in  Paul's  sense,  of  the  ocxacoa'jvTj  ix  zov  &sou, 
the  justification  by  faith,  Cyrill,  Augustine,  Erasmus,  Luther, 
Melancthon,  Lampe  and  Storr.  Melancthou  says :  Ilanc  ipsam 
rationis  humaute  opinionem  accusaturum  esse  spiritum  alfirmat, 
quae  fingit  homines  esse  justos,  id  est  habentes  remissionem 
peccatorum  propter  propria  honesta  exercitia  et  virtutes,  "he 
declares  that  the  Spirit  will  accuse  this  very  opinion  of  human 
reason,  which  feigns  that  men  are  righteous,  that  is  have  remis- 
sion of  sin,  on  account  of  creditable  actions  and  virtues  of  their 
own."  In  this  case  v.  10  has  the  meaning:  "for  after  my 
propitiating  death  I  will  ascend  to  my  Father,  to  make  a  way 
of  access  for  believers  into  my  kingdom."  The  fact  that 
Christ  does  not  speak  of  his  death,  but  of  his  glorification,  as 
the  origin  of  the  righteousness,  is  not  in  conflict  with  this  mode 
of  understanding  it,  since  his  death,  only  by  victory  over  death 
becomes  a  death  with  propitiatory  power,  (John  viii.  28,  Rom. 
iv.  25.)  Nevertheless,  the  doctrinal  type  connected  with  this  view 
of  "the  righteousness,"  is  entirely  peculiar  to  Paul,  and  stands 
in  connection  with  an  entire  circle  of  expressions,  (Storr,  de 
voce  dcxa:o^  et  cognatis,  Opusc.  ii.)  Where  John  uses  the  word 
oixacoa'jy/-^,  it  designates  unblamableness  of  conduct,  (1  John 
ii.  29,  iii.  7,  10,)  and  it  is  worthy  of  note,  that  he  is  the  very 
author  who  has  given  to  Christ  the  predicate  6  oixaco^,  (1  John 
ii.  29,  iii.  7.)  This  circumstance  strengthens  the  expositor  in  the 
conviction,  that  in  v.  10  in  the  case  of  drxncoa'jvr^^  the  subject  is 
to  be  drawn  from  the  explanatory  proposition  following  or:,  as 
in  the  two  other  sentences,  v.  9,  11.  Against  the  view  of  De 
"Wette,  however,  remain  besides  the  special  objections:  1)  "The 
statement  that  the  world  out  of  communion  with  Christ,  is 
unredeemed,  and  so  long  as  it  believes  not,  rests  under  the 

81* 


354  Chap.  X\a.— v.  12,13. 

wrath  of  God,  belongs  to  the  doctrinal  preaching  of  the  Gospel 
to  those  yet  unacquainted  with  the  Gospel,  not  to  the  eAs^pc, 
of  the  world  which  actually  persecutes  the  Gospel."  2)  "The 
words,  'because  they  believe  not,'  ou  ou  mffreoouacu,  do  not 
state  the  operation  of  the  unbelief,  but  the  fact  that  the  world 
is  unbelieving,"  (Llicke.)  That  the  baaioabvQ  designates  the 
unblamableness  of  Christ,  is  the  interpretation  of  Chrysostom, 
Euthymius,  Beza,  Bengel,  Tittmann,  Liicke  and  Olshausen, 
though  the  last  author  connects  with  it  a  reference  to  the 
dcxaioauuTj  in  believers :  "  The  Spirit  convinces  of  the  righteous- 
ness, for  he  reveals  how  the  Saviour,  who  no  longer  is  the  object 
of  corporeal  vision,  yet  works  invisibly  and  perfects  the  internal 
life."  The  absence  of  the  ixou  after  dtxwoaovrj,  will  excite  less 
surprise,  when  we  compare  vii.  17,  x.  29,  and  other  passages. 
To  the  view  maintained  by  us,  no  slight  support  is  given  by  the 
analogous  thought  in  1  Timothy  iii.  16  :  "  was  manifest  in  the 
flesh,  justified  {id:xac(o&Yj,)  in  the  Spirit." — The  explanatory 
proposition,  v.  10  :  "because  I  go  to  my  Father,  and  ye  see  me 
no  more,"  ore — ^ecvpecrs  /us,  certainly  makes  some  difficulty  in 
the  way  of  our  exposition  ;  we  must  agree  with  De  "Wette,  that 
instead  of  the  negative  xac  obxsrc  d^scopiiri  /j.£,  we  would  rather 
have  looked  for  xal  u/usc^  ^ecopslzi  /is,  (xiv.  19,)  inasmuch  as  the 
experience  of  the  operation  of  the  Spirit  with  and  in  the  Disci- 
ples, must  certainly  confirm  the  faith  in  the  ocxatoawr/,  whether 
we  understand  by  it  his  personal  holiness,  or  the  life  which 
emanates  from  him.  There  is  certainly  in  the  case  of  John  a 
special  temptation  to  suppose,  that  while  he  wrote  this  nega- 
tive proposition,  he  actually  in  thought  included  with  it  the 
positive  b/jiZi^  ok  d^ecopstTs  pts,  as  xiv.  19.  If  this  be  regarded, 
however,  as  untenable,  it  may  be  enough  to  say,  that  the 
expression  merely  conveys  in  a  negative  way  what  is  presented 
positively  by  rtpb^  vbu  Tcatspa  urrdyco,  (I  go  to  my  Father.)  In- 
asmuch as  the  departure  to  the  Father  is  the  condition  on  which 
depend  all  the  operations  of  Christ  glorified,  there  lies  in  it, 
also,  the  reason  whereby  the  Spirit  will  convince  the  world  that 
Christ  died  as  a  spotless  ofiering. — On  the  tenor  of  v.  11,  of. 
remarks  on  xii.  31. 

V.  12,  13.     From  the  efficacy  of  the  Spirit  on  the  world,  the 
discourse  makes  a  transition  to  his  efficacy  in  the  Disciples. 


Christ  comforts  his  Disciples.  355 

The  greatest  truths,  which  formed  the  centre  of  the  Apostles* 
doctrine,  as  that  of  the  propitiation,  that  of  the  Church,  of  the 
abrogation  of  the  law  for  believers,  and  various  other  truths, 
had  been  indeed  intimated  by  Christ  in  detached  sentences,  or 
had  been  expressed  in  principle,  but  the  Disciples  were  not 
ripe  for  a  full  comprehension  of  them.  Baard^tcv^  used  also 
in  Epictetus,  Enchir.  xxix.  5,  of  sufficiency  of  power,  and  not 
merely  of  intellectual  power,  but  also,  as  this  lies  in  the  nature 
of  religious  intelligence,  sufficiency  of  the  ethico-religious 
development,  cf.  ycopziv,  Matt.  xix.  12.  The  reconciliation  with 
XV.  15,  lies  in  the  fact  that  the  things  which  they  could  not  yet 
bear,  Christ  had  not  heard  for  them.  Ililaav  ztjv  alrj&ziav^ 
(Cod.  A  B,  Origen,  e^c  ^^'^  ol.  Tiaaav^  should  not  have  been 
translated  by  Luther,  [so  English  version,  also.  Tr.]  "into 
all  truth,"  (Mark  V.  12,  he  translates  correctly,)  but  should  have 
been  rendered,  "into  the  ivliole  of  the  truth."  It  is  the  domain 
then  of  Christian  truth,  which  through  Christ  has  come  into  the 
world,  (i.  17,)  which  has  been  opened  through  its  whole  extent  to 
the  Apostles.  There  is  included  here  all  that  is  communicated 
in  regard  to  the  expansion  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  (according  to 
Calvin,  only  what  is  taught  of  its  spiritual  nature,)  and  in  regard 
to  the  eschatology,  Bengel :  Maxime  hue  spectat  apocalypsis 
scripta  per  loannem,  "the  Revelation  of  John  pertains  most 
of  all  to  what  is  here  spoken  of."  In  the  proposition  whose 
form  is  so  childlike,  oh  yap — lal-qazi :  "  He  shall  not  speak  of 
himself,  but  whatsoever  he  shall  hear  that  shall  he  speak,"  the 
thought,  as  also  in  v.  14,  obviously  is,  that  the  communication 
shall  not  be  something  absolutely  new,  but  the  unfolding  of 
that  given  to  them  by  Christ,  cf  on  xiv.  26.  As  a  matter  of 
course,  too,  the  "things  to  come,"  ipyhpzva^  are  included  in 
"whatsoever  he  shall  hear,"  oaa  dv  dxooarj,  (cf  duayyahT,  v.  14, 
15,  25.)  According  to  Liicke,  after  "  whatsoever  he  shall  hear," 
dxoiKTrj,  we  should  supply  ix  to~j  ;r«r/>oc,  "of  the  Father,"  to 
sustain  which,  he  appeals  to  xv.  15,  26  ;  according  to  Kling  and 
Olshausen,  because  of  v.  14,  15,  we  should  supply  ix  too  uhu, 
"of  the  Son."  Luther  says:  "There  is  a  holy  conversation 
between  the  Father  and  the  Word,  and  the  Spirit  is  the  hearer." 
The  words  in  v.  15,  Ttdura — itrzc,  "all  things  that  the  Father 
hath  are  mine,"  would  lead  to  the  belief  that  ix  rou  r.azpbz 


356  Chap.  XYL  — v.  14-21. 

should  be  supplied  after  dxo~j(T7j,  and  that  v.  14, 15,  are  designed 
to  expand  this  thought  and  to  include  the  Son.  According  to 
the  doctrine  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  this  bdr^yr^atc  is 
continued  in  the  Church  of  Rome  also,  since  even  of  the 
Apostolic  times  it  was  still  true  in  a  certain  measure :  ob 
o'ji'aa&z  ^^aard^itv  dprc,  "ye  cannot  bear  them  now  ;"  according 
to  the  Quakers  and  Mystics,  this  revelation  of  the  Spirit  goes 
on  in  the  illuminated  in  general  or  in  particular  theosophists, 
according  to  the  Hegelians,  in  the  entire  Christian  world,  in 
which  the  principle  of  free  subjectivity  is  ever  unfolding 
more  widely.  That  Christ  had  the  Apostles  alone  in  his  mind, 
is  proven,  especially  by  xiv.  26,  and  xv.  26,  27 ;  inasmuch  then 
as  the  ■zaaa  jy  aArj&eca  is  promised  to  them,  there  cannot  exist 
between  the  Church  and  the  Apostles  that  relation  of  further 
development  which  existed  between  the  Apostles  and  Christ. 
In  consonance  with  this,  is  the  consciousness  of  the  oldest  post- 
apostolic  teachers,  for  the  Epistles  of  Barnabas,  of  Clemens 
Roman  us,  and  of  Polycarp,  prove  that  they  acknowledged  a 
specific  difference  between  themselves  and  the  Apostles,  and 
acknowledged  the  Apostolic  teaching  as  the  absolute  rule  for 
themselves  and  the  whole  Christian  world,  see  the  passages  in 
Tholuck's  Comment,  z.  Br.  an  d.  Heb.  2d  ed.  p.  96.  Conse- 
quently the  further  development  in  the  Church  through  the 
Spirit,  can  only  be  regarded  as  one  pertaining  to  the  form,  cf. 
the  fuller  discussion  in  the  introduction  to  Ep.  to  the  Hebrews, 
chap.  vi. 

V.  14,  15.  All  religious  truth  within  Christianity,  as  regards 
its  centre,  rests  upon  Christ  himself,  what,  therefore,  the  Spirit 
receives  and  reveals  more  fully,  must  serve  to  glorify  Christ, 
and  must  proceed  from  Christ  as  its  source. 

y.  16.  This  communication  of  the  Spirit,  in  which  Christ 
himself  returns,  is  soon  to  follow,  cf.  xiv.  19.  Although  the 
Tzdhv  fjuy.pd^',  and  especially  the  description  of  the  joy  at  behold- 
ing him  again,  perhaps,  also,  the  oipojiaj.  bfiaz,  v.  22,  have  led 
expositors  to  refer  these  words  yet  more  decidedly  than  xiv.  19, 
to  the  time  of  the  resurrection,*  yet  this  verse  stands  in  such 

1  Not  merely  those  expositors  who  took  xiv.  19  in  that  way,  not  merely  all  the 
Greeks  explain  this  passage  of  the  resurrection,  but  even  Augustine  does  so ;  and 
Luther  himself,  who  interpreted  xiv.  19,  of  seeing  him  again  both  at  his  resurrection 


Christ  comforts  his  Disciples.  857 

a  conuection  with  the  earlier  and  with  the  following  ones,  as 
to  compel  lis  to  refer  them  to  a  seeing  him  again  in  the  Spirit. 
In  the  verses  immediately  preceding,  the  sending  of  the  Spirit 
was  the  subject  of  discourse,  and  v.  21-26  link  with  this  seeing 
him  again,  the  promise  of  a  spiritual  change  such  as  was  not 
wrought  by  the  resurrection.  It  might  certainly  be  possible 
that  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  (inasmuch  as  when  he  had 
risen  he  could  be  looked  upon  as  belonging  to  earth  no  more, 
and  as  he  indeed  appeared  but  transiently  with  the  Disciples,) 
may  be  considered  the  beginning  of  the  do^aa/w^,  and  conse- 
quently embraced  in  one  with  the  coming  of  the  Spirit,  and  be 
represented  as  a  continuous  thing  with  it,  in  which  case  xx.  22 
could  properly  be  compared.  It  would  be  an  analogous  rela- 
tion if  John  designated  not  merely  the  new  birth,  but  the  sus- 
ceptibility for  the  Gospel  also,  as  an  eluai  ix  rou  d^so~j,  (viii.  47,) 
or  if  he  represented  the  <pcd::  in  men  as  an  indwelling  of  the 
Uyo^  in  men.  Verses  20,  21,  might  especially  induce  to  the 
adoption  of  this  view.  But  considered  with  reference  to  the 
Disciples,  Christ  risen  had  throughout  a  different  signification 
from  Christ  glorified,  and  according  to  Luke  xxiv.  49,  Acts  i. 
8,  we  must  believe  that  the  outpouring  of  the  Spirit  presup- 
posed the  ascension  as  a  thing  accomplished. 

V.  17,  18.  Some  of  the  Disciples  confer  together  in  regard 
to  the  enigmatical  discourse,  in  which  the  words,  pLcxpov — 
otpza&i  /IS,  are  as  obscure  to  them  as  the  last  part  of  it.  " EXtyov 
oov  seems  to  imply  that  [uxpov  gave  them  special  difiicult3\ 

V.  19-21.  It  certainly  seems  obvious  here,  that  we  are  to 
think  of  their  seeing  him  again  after  his  resurrection,  not  so 
much  because  the  period  of  time  corresponds  with  the  doubled 
fjuxfjop,  (from  midnight,  about  which  time  this  discourse  falls, 
to  the  hour  of  the  afternoon  at  which  Christ  died,  was  about 
eighteen  hours,  and  from  his  death  to  his  resurrection,  about 
thirty,)  but  especially,  also,  because  the  resurrection  was  cer- 
tainly a  joy  to  the  Disciples,  and  it  would  be  surprising  if  this  joy 
were  wholly  unmentioned,  and  we  were  compelled  to  see  only  a 
reference  to  that  spiritual  joy  which  proceeded  from  the  posses- 

and  in  the  Spirit,  giving  predominiince  to  the  latter  reference,  here  mnkes  the  former 
predominate.  The  most  recent  defense  of  the  reference  of  xiv.  18.  seq.  and  of  this 
passage  to  seeing  Christ  again  personally,  is  that  of  Suszkind,  Tflb.  Mag.  fur  Dogm. 
u.  Moral.  St.  7,  p.  184,  seq. 


358  Chap.  XYL— v.  22-27. 

sion  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  For  this  reason,  as  has  been  observed, 
there  has  been  a  disposition  to  regard  as  included  the  seeing 
him  asain  after  the  resurrection.  Yet  it  cannot  be  the  main 
feature  in  the  matter,  as  the  last  words  in  v.  21  already  prove. 
The  similitude  now  draws  a  parallel  first  of  all  between  the 
sharp  but  brief  pains  of  a  woman  in  travail,  and  the  transient 
mourning  of  the  Disciples  over  the  death  of  their  Lord,  and 
then  between  her  joy  over  the  new  life  and  their  joy  in  behold- 
ing him  again.  But  the  comparison  may  be  taken  yet  more 
strictl3^  As  in  the  case  of  the  woman  in  travail,  the  anguish 
is  the  condito  sine  qua  non,  in  fact,  the  cause  of  the  joy,  so 
here,  the  anguish  at  the  separation  from  the  bodily  appearing 
of  the  Eedeemer,  may  be  regarded  as  the  operative,  or  at  least 
the  cooperative  cause  of  the  subsequent  joy,  inasmuch  as  the 
spiritual  possession  of  the  Redeemer  necessarily  presupposed  a 
separation  from  the  possession  of  him  in  his  bodily  presence. 
Furthermore,  the  words,  "that  a  man  is  born  into  the  world," 
ozc  kyEvvTj&fi — xoaiiov,  seem  also  designed  not  merely  to  depict 
the  greatness  of  the  joy  on  the  part  of  the  woman  in  travail, 
but  to  have  an  independent  significance.  If  we  refer  the  ex- 
pression to  the  seeing  Christ  after  he  arose,  the  new  born  man 
directs  our  thought  to  Christ  given  back  from  the  dead,  in 
which  case,  indeed,  there  is  an  inconcinnity  in  the  comparison, 
as  the  mourning  Disciples  were  previously  regarded  under  the 
image  of  the  woman  in  travail ;  if  the  seeing  again  spiritually 
is  the  subject  of  discourse,  we  may  preserve  an  exact  coherence 
with  the  illustration,  and  introduce  the  spiritual  life  of  the 
Disciples  newly  aroused  by  the  internal  struggles  and  the  pain, 
(Maldouatus,  Liicke,  De  Wette.)  When  the  new  life  of  the 
Disciples  should  be  brought  into  being  by  their  separation  from 
the  visible  presence  of  the  Redeemer,  they  would  certainly 
remember  no  more  that  transient  pain.  This  depicture  of  the 
ardent  maternal  joy  over  a  new  human  life,  may  be  classed 
with  those  expressions  of  our  Saviour,  in  which  he  exhibited  a 
healthful  feeling  for  what  is  purely  human.  The  present 
r«r/;,  as  temp,  inf.,  expresses  what  is  about  to  happen,  (x.  33,) 
■q  ujpa  aoTYj^,  "the  decisive  moment." 

V.  22-27.     The  effects  of  seeing  him  again  are  mentioned, 
which  indicate  that  the  Disciples  will  possess  the  Holy  Ghost, 


Christ  comforts  his  Disciples.  359 

and  which  confirm  the  reference  to  a  spiritual  seeing  of  him 
again :  1)  The  steadfast  abiding  of  the  joy  obtained.  2)  The 
possession  of  the  understanding  necessary.  3)  The  rich  experi- 
ence of  prayer  answered.  4)  The  communication  to  their 
spirit  made  by  the  Redeemer  without  figurative  expressions. 
5)  The  relation  of  the  expiatory  work  to  the  Father. — V.  22. 
The  promise  of  eternal  joy,  as  well  as  the  assurance  that  in 
that  day  there  should  be  nothing  more  to  ask,  certainly  seems 
so  strong  as  to  make  it  pardonable  in  Augustine,  when  in  con- 
tradiction to  his  own  explanation  of  v.  16,  which  he  referred  to 
the  resurrection,  he  here  thinks  that  the  seeing  again  in  eter- 
nity is  spoken  of,  and  shows  that  he  is  inclined,  even  in  v.  16, 
to  interpret  the  7:d?.(v  /jixpou  thus :  "  Modicum  est  hoc  totum 
spatium,  quo  prtesens  pervolat  sseculum,  "brief  is  this  whole 
period  through  which  the  present  world  hastens."  But  over 
against  the  possession  of  the  earthly  appearing  of  Christ,  which 
was  to  be  removed,  the  ncNy  independent  possession  of  Christ 
obtained  in  the  Spirit  was  actually  an  abiding  one,  and  they 
actually  no  longer  sought  the  truth  out  of  themselves  from  any 
teacher  whatsoever ;  ipcorav  is  retrospective  to  v.  19. — V.  23, 
24.  The  spirit  of  the  Apostles  united  with  Christ,  will  offer 
prayer  in  conformity  with  the  mind  of  Christ,  and  will  behold 
its  fulfillment,  (xiv.  13,  14.) — V.  25-27.  In  a  certain  sense  it 
may  be  said  of  all  the  instructions  of  Christ,  that  they  were 
uttered  iv  Tzaoocfica:::,  since  that  which  he  revealed  of  God,  he 
expressed  only  in  the  form  in  which  it  can  have  access  to  us; 
but  it  was  specially  true  of  his  discourse  in  regard  to  his 
departure,  of  their  seeing  him  again,  and  the  result  of  it.  If 
the  truth  was  begotten  independently  in  the  Apostles  through 
the  Holy  Spirit,  there  could  remain  for  them  none  of  the 
obscurity  of  figurative  language  in  that  truth  which  was  so 
begotten  as  to  be  their  own.  In  virtue  of  this  possession  of 
the  truth,  most  eminently  their  own,  they  stood  in  an  immedi- 
ate relation  to  the  Father,  and  needed  no  more  a  mediation 
for  their  prayers.  This  relation,  however,  is  not  to  be  under- 
stood as  abr-olute,  but  as  relative  only,  it  is  more  and  more 
brought  to  pass  until  it  reaches  the  period  of  time  designated 
in  1  Cor.  xv.  28.  This  self-dependent  possession  of  God  is 
mediated  on  the  part  of  the  Disciples  through  love  and  faith 


360  Chap.  XVL  — v.  28-33. 

in  Christ.  Bengel :  Amor  et  posterior  est  fide  et  prior :  nam 
se  iiivicem  sustentant.  Hoc  loco  amor  prseponitur,  ut  eo 
magis  inter  se  respondeant  hsec  verba  amat,  amavistis,  "  love  is 
both  prior  to  faith  and  subsequent  to  it :  for  they  mutually  sup- 
port each  other.  In  this  passage  love  is  put  first,  that  these 
words,  '  he  loves,  ye  have  loved,'  may  accord  the  more  with  each 
other."  According  to  xiv.  16,  Christ  mediates  the  impartation 
of  the  Spirit,  but  the  richer  the  possession  of  the  Spirit,  the 
more  does  the  necessity  for  the  continuance  of  that  mediation 
cease.  That  is  designated  as  the  centre  of  their  faith,  to  which 
also  the  prayer  of  the  Redeemer  (xvii.  8,)  gives  prominence. 

V.  28-30.  The  thought  at  the  close  of  v.  27  leads  back  to 
the  one  expressed  in  v.  16.  On  the  form,  igrjX&ov  xzL  cf.  on  iii. 
34.  The  misapprehension  of  the  Disciples  is  of  such  a  nature, 
that  if  it  were  not  recorded  in  history,  an  invention  of  it  would 
be  inconceivable.  Augustine  :  Illi  usque  adeo  non  intelligunt, 
ut  nee  saltem,  se  non  intelligere,  intelligant,  "  so  little  do  they 
understand,  that  they  can  not  even  understand  that  they  do  not 
understand."  The  explanatory  answer  which  Jesus  had  given, 
commencing  with  v.  19,  had  probably  not  been  much  clearer 
to  the  Disciples  than  the  mysterious  language  in  v.  16 ;  it  is 
bard  to  say  what  meaning  they  supposed  they  saw  in  it,  but 
the  collateral  circumstance,  that  Christ  had  anticipated  them 
with  his  answer,  (v.  19,)  makes  such  an  impression  upon  them, 
that  this  glance  which  penetrates  their  hearts  becomes  to  them 
corroborative  proof  that  he  came  forth  from  God,  (on  TriaTsuecu, 
see  remarks  on  ii.  11.)  There  is  no  occasion  for  supposing 
that  they  also  misunderstood  v.  23,  and  referred  the  promise 
to  the  present  moment,  (Liicke,  De  Wette ;)  it  is  only  necessary 
to  consider,  that  the  entire  discourse  from  v.  20,  was  the 
answer  with  which  Jesus  anticipated  their  question,  so  that 
vuv,  V.  30,  is  to  be  paraphrased:  "iTow,  since  thou  givest  us 
the  answer  to  the  question  we  intended  to  put." 

V.  31,  32.  The  analogy  with  xiii.  38,  would  allow  dpu 
mazsueve  to  be  taken  as  a  doubting  question,  (Euthymius, 
Olshausen,  De  Wette.)  It  is  true,  the  objection  of  Maldonatus 
may  be  urged,  that  the  dpu  would  be  without  meaning,  and 
that  the  Disciples  were  actually  at  this  moment  pervaded  with 
faith.     Yet,  if  with  Luther,  Meyer,  Liicke,  we  take  it  as  asser- 


Christ  comforts  his  Disciples.  361 

tory,  an  dUd  would  seem  to  be  required  in  the  following  sen- 
tence. The  announcement  here  made  by  Christ  is  in  conform- 
ity with  Matt.  xxvi.  31,  cf.  56.  Jesus  closes  by  consoling  him- 
self with  a  thought  similar  to  that  in  viii.  28,  29. 

V.  33.  "  The  three  ideas,  the  spiritual  return  of  Christ  in 
the  souls  of  his  Disciples,  their  emancipation  to  independence 
of  life  with  the  Father,  and  the  victory  over  the  world,  form 
the  thread  which  runs  through  all  the  farewell  discourses," 
(Schweizcr.)  Thus  all  these  discourses  serve  to  give  the  Disci- 
ples peace  in  Christ,  yet  the  language  also  glances  back  to  the 
announcement  he  had  made  of  the  troubles  that  awaited  them. 
The  consolation  in  the  words  vevixr^xa  zbv  xbajiov,  "I  have  over- 
come the  world,"  is  of  course  not  that  of  the  example,  (Grotius,) 
but  according  to  xvi.  11,  this,  that  Christ  has  broken  the 
diabolical  power  which  sways  in  a  godless  world,  (Luke  x.  18 ;) 
he  who  has  faith  in  him,  knows,  in  virtue  of  his  redemption, 
that  in  this  faith  he  possesses  the  victory,  that  he  that  is  in  him 
is  greater  than  he  that  is  in  the  world,  (1  John  v.  4,  iv.  4.) 
Jerome :  Propter  fidei  certitudinem  in  me  debetis  pacem 
habere,  non  sentiendo  prsesentia,  sed  certo  sperando  futura, 
*'  on  account  of  the  certaint}'  of  j'our  faith,  ye  ought  to  have 
peace  in  me,  not  from  what  sense  offers  of  the  present,  but 
fi'om  what  hope  makes  sure  of  the  future."  Augustine:  ISTon 
vicisset  Christus  mundum,  si  ejus  membra  vinceret  mundus, 
"  Christ  would  not  have  overcome  the  world,  if  the  world  could 
overcome  his  members." — The  tranquil  clearness  with  which 
these  discourses  terminate,  forms  the  transition  to  that  exalta- 
tion of  the  soul  of  Christ  in  prayer,  which  now  follows. 


32 


CHAPTER   XYII. 


Hitherto  the  glance  of  the  Redeemer  has  only  been  directed 
sympathetically  toward  his  Disciples,  and  the  trials  that  awaited 
them,  now  those  which  he  himself  must  encounter,  present 
themselves  anew  to  his  soul.  He  prays — his  prayer  in  its 
largest  portion  is  intercession,  and,  therefore,  beyond  doubt 
directed  to  the  consolation  of  the  Disciples.  Augustine :  Tanti 
magistri  non  solum  sermocinatio  ad  ipsos  sed  etiam  oratio  pro 
ipsis  discipulorum  est  pedificatio,  "  not  only  the  preaching  of  so 
great  a  master  to  them,  but  also  his  prayer  for  them,  edifies  his 
Disciples."  How  mighty  in  its  effect  upon  the  Disciples  must 
have  been  the  memory  of  that  prayer !  Our  Lord  himself 
mtimates  this  in  v.  13.  "It  is,"  says  Luther,  " assuredly  be- 
yond measure  an  ardent,  heartfelt  prayer,  in  which  he  opens 
both  to  us  and  to  his  Father  the  depth  of  his  heart,  and  pours 
it  all  forth. — Plain  and  simple  as  it  sounds,  it  is  so  deep,  rich 
and  broad,  that  no  man  can  fathom  it."  Before  the  sainted 
Spener  departed  this  life,  he  had  this  discourse  read  to  him 
three  times,  "  meaning  thereby  to  intimate,"  says  his  biographer, 
(Cansteiu,  Life  of  Spener,  p.  146,)  "that  this  chapter  was 
peculiarly  dear  to  him,  yet  he  never  had  been  willing  to  preach 
upon  it,  declaring  that  he  did  not  comprehend  it,  and  that  the 
full  understanding  of  it  transcended  the  measure  of  faith 
which  the  Lord  was  wont  to  dispense  to  his  people  in  their 
pilgrimage.  [Bretschneider,  with  whom  Strauss  concurs,  pro- 
nounces the  prayer  an  oratio  frigida,  dogmatica,metaphysica.] 
The  name  which  the  prayer  bears  iu  the  Church,  "  the  sacer- 
dotal prayer,"  oratio  sacerdotalis,  is  based  partly  upon  its 
intercessory  character,  partly  on  the  fact  that  in  v.  19  Christ 
consecrates  himself  to  his  expiatory  death. 

(362) 


The  Prayeii  of  the  Saviour  for  himself.  863 

In  the  first  part  of  the  pyayer,  the  Saviour  speaks  of  his 
relation  to  mankind,  and  supplicates  for  that  elevation  of 
himself  to  glory  which  is  associated  with  the  consummation 
of  the  Father's  glory  in  mankind,  (v.  1-8 ;)  in  the  second  part, 
he  heseeches  that  his  Disciples  may  he  watched  over  in  the 
world  and  sanctified  through  the  word  of  truth,  (v.  9-19  ;)  in 
the  third  part,  he  embraces  in  his  prayer  the  believers  of  all 
time  to  come,  "who  are  represented  germinally  in  the  Apos- 
tles," (Olshausen,)  and  implores  for  them  perfect  unity  with 
himself,  with  one  another,  and  with  the  Father,  and  at  the 
same  time  a  fellowship  in  glory,  (v.  20-26. y  [The  calm 
assurance  and  triumph  of  this  prayer,  have  been  urged  against 
its  genuineness,  as  if  the  agony  of  Qethsemane  proved  that  it 
could  not  have  been  uttered.  But  the  same  assurance  and 
triumph  are  involved  in  the  institution  of  the  Lord's  Supper — 
and  yet  Gethsemaue  followed  that,  cf  John  xii.  27.  Between 
the  prayer  here  and  the  agony  in  the  garden,  liours  elapsed.] 
m 

The  Prayer  of  the  Saviour  for  himself. — v.  1-8. 

V.  1,  2.  The  lifting  up  of  his  eyes  to  heaven  does  not  prove 
that  our  Lord  uttered  this  prayer  in  the  open  air ;  the  eyes  of 
a  person  in  prayer  must  be  turned  in  some  direction,  the 
upward  turning  of  them  rests  on  that  natural  symbolism,  in 
accordance  with  which  even  that  man  who  possesses  a  clear 
view  of  the  omnipresence  of  God,  imagines  to  himself  the 
heavens,  in  view  of  their  brightness,  height  and  illimitable 
extension,  as  the  habitation  of  God.  It  is  possible  that  through 
the  window,  simply  closed  with  a  lattice,  the  look  of  Christ 
extended  out  upon  the  nocturnal  sky,  bright  with  the  Easter 
moon.— The  glorification  of  the  Father  and  of  the  Sou  are 
reciprocally  conditional,  as  in  xiii.  31,  32.  Ao^aoov  aou  rbv  ulov, 
has  a  dififerent  meaning  from  oo^aaov  aou  to  oijo/ia,  xii.  28,  as  v. 

1  Melancthon  :  Primum  de  se  ipso  precatur,  postea  de  tota  ecclesia  et  de  hac  petit 
quntuor  res  praacipuas  ecclesiao,  conservationem  verte  doctrinae,  concordiam  ecclesise, 
applicationem  sui  sacrificii  et  ultimum  ac  summuin  bonum,  ut  ecclesia  cum  Christo 
ornetur  vita,  l^titia  et  gloria  aeterna,  "first  he  prays  for  himself,  then  for  the  whole 
Church,  and  for  it  he  implores  the  four  principal  things  of  the  Church,  the  preser- 
vation of  true  doctrine,  concord  in  the  Church,  the  application  of  his  sacrifice,  and 
the  last  and  highest  good,  that  the  Church  with  Christ  may  be  invested  with  life, 
joy  and  eternal  glory." 


364  Chap.  XVH.  — v.  3. 

5  proves.  It  is  the  glorification  of  Christ,  in  virtue  of  which  the 
limitations  of  the  earthly  condition  cease  and  the  Spirit  pro- 
ceeds from  him,  and  so  far  this  do^aajuot;  of  the  Son  is  also  a 
do^aojioc:  of  the  Father.  The  operations  of  the  Saviour  had 
commenced  on  but  a  narrow  point.  They  were,  as  v.  2  declares, 
to  extend  over  all  mankind,  cf.  also,  xv.  8,  the  Disciples,  also. 
Were  to  be  more  thoroughly  grounded,  see  yvcopcffo),  v.  26. 
Ka&cbc:  is  causal,  proceeding  from  the  idea  of  fitness,  conse- 
quently as,  because,  inasmuch  as,  cf.  Matt,  xxviii.  18.  As  the 
rhetorical  ttup  which  precedes  is  a  collective,  the  auTo7<;  which 
refers  to  it  is  in  the  plural. 

V.  3.  Ji  introduces  the  explanation  of  the  way  in  which 
the  impartation  of  life  takes  place,  "/va  conveys  the  idea  of 
the  infinitive,  cf.  on  iv.  34.  The  modern  exegesis  considered 
the  knowledge  as  the  condition  and  mediation  of  the  possession 
of  eternal  life,  so  that  iazcu,  taken  metonymically,  was  explain- 
ed: "hoc  modo  paratur,"  "in  this  way  is  brought  to  pass," 
(Grotius.)  Yet  more  abstractly  were  the  ycvcbaxtcv  and  the 
aiojvco^  f^corj  kept  asunder,  by  those  who  understood  the  "  life 
eternal  "  exclusively  of  the  world  to  come ;  already  some  of 
the  Church-fathers  wished  to  prove  from  this,  that  the  blessed- 
ness of  the  world  to  come  consisted  only  in  the  vision,  the 
clear  knowledge  of  God,  against  which  Maldonatus  says: 
Vita  seterna  hie  appellatur  inchoatio  qusedam  vitee  coelestis, 
"life  eternal  is  the  name  here  given  to  a  beginning  of  the 
heavenly  life."  Knowing  is  in  John's  style  of  thought  invari- 
ably to  be  regarded  as  simultaneous  with  believing,  (see  on  vi. 
69,)  but  in  believing,  the  object  of  belief  becomes  the  posses- 
sion of  man,  passes  over  into  his  subjectivity,  (see  on  Heb.  xi. 
1,  iv.  2.)  In  faith  and  knowledge,  consequently,  eternal  life 
is  embraced,  cf.  la-clv,  xii.  50.^  The  object  of  faith  is  God,  the 
true  God,  that  is,  not  God  as  the  heathens  know  him,  cf.  1 
John  V.  20,  Rev.  v.  7,  1  Thess.  i.  9 ;  the  iiovoq,  expresses  that 
none  other  than  he  is  the  true  one,  (Romans  xvi.  27,  1  Tim. 
vi.  16 ;)  Christ  is  coordinate  with  God,  as  the  one  in  whom  this 

^  IreniBUS,  adv.  bisr.  iv.  20 :  t,iiaai  uvev  ^uTj^  ovx  olov  re  Earl'  rj  6k  virap^ic  tvC  C"W 
tK  T^g  Tov  ■deov  ne^iyivETai,  fieTox>ig'  fJ-^TOXV  ''e  '^eov  iari  to  yivucKELV  ■debv  not 
uno'kavELv  r^f  %p??(T76r??TOf  avrov.  "To  live  without  life  is  impossible,  but  the  ex- 
istence of  life  is  derived  from  the  participation  of  God ;  but  the  participation  of  God 
is  to  know  God,  and  to  enjoy  his  goodness." 


'  The  Prayer  of  the  Saviour  for  hlmski.f.  3G5 

absolute  knowledge  of  God  has  been  unveiled.  "  This  passage 
presents  a  combined  expression  of  Christian  truth  as  opposed 
to  Polytheism  and  Judaism,"  (Liicke.)  From  the  fact  that 
the  Father  is  represented  exclusively  as  the  true  God,  and  that 
Christ  is  mentioned  together  with  him,  the  Arian,  Socinian 
and  Kationalistic  expositors  have  drawn  inferences  opposed  to 
the  doctrine  of  the  Church  in  regard  to  the  deity  of  Christ. 
But  God  is  said  to  be  /uovoc,  not  in  antithesis  to  Christ,  but  to 
false  gods ;  Xicolaus  De  Lyra :  Est  sensus,  quod  ilia  est  sola 
deltas  vera,  qyne  est  in  patre,  et  sic  non  excluditur  filius,  "the 
meaning  is,  that  the  only  true  deity  is  that  which  is  in  the 
Father,  and  the  Son,  consequently,  is  not  excluded;"  nor  is  the 
coordination  of  Christ  in  conflict  with  the  Church  doctrine, 
which  does  not  maintain  the  absolute  identity  of  the  ideas, 
God  and  Christ,  but  rather,  that  Christ  is  that  human  individual 
originating  in  time,  in  whom  God  linked  himself  and  human- 
ity in  an  absolute  manner.  Had  it  been  otherwise,  Christ  could 
not  have  ofltered  prayer.  [So  far  is  the  phrase,  "  the  only  true 
God,"  from  excluding  Christ  from  the  predicate  of  God-head, 
that  rather  in  him  only  the  absolute  God  appears,  and  Bengel, 
on  the  words  dv  drreorer^ac,  justly  remarks :  missio  prtesupponit 
filium  cum  patre  unum,  cf.  on  the  idea  involved,  what  is  said 
on  iii.  34.]  A  like  coordination  of  God  and  Christ  is  found 
in  xiv.  1.  The  Evangelist,  moreover,  1  John  v.  20,  in  all  prob- 
ability has  applied  to  Christ  also  the  predicate,  6  dh^&iudc  ^?£6c. 
From  a  polemical  interest,  the  older  expositors  (Ambrose, 
Augustine,  Hilary,)  construe  thus :  Ut  te  et  quem  misisti  cog- 
noscant  solum  verum  deum,  "  that  they  may  know  thee  and 
him  whom  thou  has  sent,  as  the  only  true  God." — Nevertheless, 
the  question  is  to  be  weighed,  whether  Xpcazov  is  not  to  be 
construed  with  ycvtoaxioae,  "as  the  Christ,"  just  as  tov  d^&iubu 
■&s.6v  is  the  predicate  of  ai,  (Le  Clerc,  Nosselt,  Kuinol,  Meyer.) 
But  doubt  is  at  once  thrown  upon  this  by  the  fact  that  in 
the  Gospels  Xpcaro^  usually  has  the  article;  in  the  Epistles, 
after  it  had  become  a  current  predicate,  it  has  not  the  article, 
(Winer,  p.  104,  4th  ed.)  Out  of  eighteen  passages  in  John 
where  it  occurs  with  the  addition  of  '/ij<ToDc,  there  is  but  one 
(ix.  22,)  in  which  the  article  is  wanting ;  the  article  is  found, 
too,  in  1  John  ii.  22,  iv.  3,  v.   1,  G,  2  John  9.     ISTor  will  the 


366  Chap.  XVn.— v.  4-9. 

predicate  be  missed  at  all  if,  as  in  i.  17,  1  John  i.  3,  7,  we 
connect  ""  Irjcoo:;  Xp.,  since  it  indirectly  lies  in  ou  drtiarsiXa!;. 
Christ's  speaking  of  himself  in  the  third  person  is  in  rhetor- 
ically solemn  style ;  yet  there  is  in  it,  perhaps,  a  glimpse  of  the 
Evangelist  writing  at  a  later  period. 

V.  4,  5.  The  petition  in  v.  1,  is  here  expressed  yet  more 
specifically.  In  the  spyou,  the  death  which  w^as  before  him 
may  be  considered  as  proleptically  included,  (v.  19  ;)  especially 
striking  is  the  prolepsis,  v.  11,  but  as  the  further  expansion  of 
the  thought,  v.  6,  T,  makes  no  mention  of  the  death,  it  seems 
hazardous  to  presume  a  reference  to  it.  The  gathering  and 
institution  of  the  Church  seem  rather  to  be  designated  here  as 
the  epyov.  The  "being  with  the  Father,"  eluac  Tipot;  tou  Tcavspa, 
had  already,  xiv.  28,  been  designated  as  the  condition  of 
"glory,"  o6?«,  and  so  also  here,  cf.  on  xiii.  32.  This  "glory" 
is  that  which  he  possessed  before  he  appeared  on  earth,  and 
which  by  coming  to  earth  he  surrendered ;  entirely  correspond- 
ent are  Philip,  ii.  7,  2  Cor.  viii.  9,  rj  stands  per  attract.  It 
appears  to  come  in  conflict  with  this,  that  according  to  v.  22, 
i.  14,  ii.  11,  Christ  already  possesses  this  glory  in  this  world.^ 
But  we  need  but  reflect  in  what  this  glory  possessed  by  Christ 
consists,  and  we  at  once  see  that  this  conception,  like  others, 
as  for  example,  "being  in  God,"  "believing,"  eluac  iu  ■&£w, 
Tzcaveueiv,  has  a  narrower  and  a  more  extended  meaning  ;  while 
the  Evangelist,  by  the  "glory  "  he  predicates  of  Christ  during 
his  sojourn  on  earth,  means  his  power  of  working  miracles ;  that 
glory  which  Christ  anticipates  in  the  world  to  come,  is  a  free- 
dom from  every  earthly  limitation.  On  the  "glory"  which 
the  Kedeemer  gives  the  Disciples,  see  remarks  on  v.  10,  22. 
[By  this  glory  we  cannot  understand  merely  the  gloria  media- 
toria,  (Lampe,)  nor  simply,  according  to  the  analogy  of  the 
glory  of  God  in  the  Old  Testament,  the  attributes  of  God, 
which  was  the  earlier  view  of  Thomasius,  (Christol.  Beitrage, 
p.  93,)  but  as  V.  22,  and  Heb.  i.  3  show,  it  means  "the  ma- 
jesty," that  in  virtue  of  which  God  is  God ;  Gerhard,  Loci.  i. 

1  Kostlin,  Lehrbegriff  des  Ev.  und  der  Briefe  Johannis,  "System  of  the  Gospels 
and  Epistles  of  John,  1843,  p.  151,"  thinks  he  can  venture  so  far  as  to  say,  "that 
no  where  in  John  is  there  a  trace  of  the  idea,  that  there  was  a  humiliation  in  the 
cup^  iyevETo,  '  becoming  flesh'" — according  to  John,  Christ  is  cvdo^og,  ir^-TJpTjg,  and  not 
KEvoc,  as  in  Philip,  ii.  7,  8. 


Intercession  for  the  first  Disciples.  367 

243;  Liebner,  Cliristol.  i.  322;  Thomasius,  Person  Christi,  i. 
135 ;  Gess,  Person  Christi,  p.  295.]  We  might  the  more  readily 
believe,  that  elj^ov  here  implies  only  the  possession  in  the 
divine  fore-ordination,  (Grotius,  Wetstein,  GaLler,)  as  the 
language  is  not ;  "  before  I  came  into  the  world,"  Tipb  tou  fie 
i).&eiv  £rV  70V  xbofiov^  but  "before  the  world  was,"  Tzpo  tou 
rbv  xoapoD  hvai,  cf.  Ephes.  i.  4.  But  napd  aoi  is  parallel  with 
Ttapa  ata'jTuj^  which  no  one  would  be  willing,  with  Eckermann, 
to  translate:  "Glorify  me  now  according  to  thy  counsel;"  the 
words,  "  before  the  world  was,"  are  placed  in  antithesis  to  the 
transient  limitations  of  time.  There  is,  consequently,  here,  as 
in  vi.  G2,  viii.  58,  a  continuity  of  the  consciousness  of  the  his- 
torical Christ  with  the  Logos.  Among  the  Arminians,  Episco- 
pius  already  expressed  a  doubt  about  that  way  of  understand- 
ing it,  (of  his  having  it  in  the  divine  fore-ordination,)  since  it 
makes  Christ  affirm  of  himself  what  could  with  equal  truth  be 
affirmed  of  every  one  ;  Semler  felt  the  same  difficulty.  In 
Philip,  ii.  6,  Heb.  xii.  2,  the  glorification  appears  as  the  reward 
of  the  "obedience,"  u7:axoij,  he  displayed,  a  thought  which  does 
not  appear  here,  nor  can  it  be  found  in  v.  22,  24. 

V.  6-8.  The  ipyo'j  is  further  unfolded,  it  consists  in  the 
establishment  of  the  Church,  the  (v^&pco7:ot  are  first  of  all  the 
band  of  Apostles,  see  v.  14,  20.  The  Church  has  been  formed 
through  the  true  knowledge  of  God,  through  the  knowledge 
of  the  name  of  God,  that  is,  of  all  that  God  is  ;  the  members 
have  been  brought  into  the  Church  through  their  affinity  with 
God,  through  the  internal  calling  of  God,  (viii.  47,  vi.  45.) 
Led  by  the  Father  through  the  internal  drawing,  they  have 
made  the  "word,"  /o^oc,  of  Christ  committed  to  them  by  God, 
their  own  possession,  see  on  zTjOtiv^  remarks  on  viii.  51.  The 
grand  constituent  of  this  "word,"  is  the  doctrina  de  Christo, 
the  acknowledgment  of  the  full  revelation  in  Christ,  (xiv.  10,) 
cf.  on  dlrjdua  above,  remarks  on  viii.  46,  on  r.apd  ao~j  i^r^X^oUj 
see  remarks  on  iii.  34. 

Intercession  for  the  first  Disciples. — v.  9-19. 

V.  9.  The  preceding  declarations  had  exhibited  the  close 
relation  in  which  the  Disciples  stand  to  the  Father,  and  now  is 


368  Chap.  XVH.  — v.  10-16. 

added  the  intercession  for  them,  and  the  peculiar  motive  on 
which  it  rests.  The  person  who  prays  is  wont  to  strengthen  his 
assurance  b}'^  giving  prominence  to  those  parts  of  the  objects 
of  his  petition  which  warrant  that  he  will  be  heard  ;  in  accord- 
ance with  this  we  are  to  explain  in  this  place  the  exclusion  of 
"the  world,"  z6<r/joc.  A  father  whose  pious  and  cherished 
child  is  at  the  point  of  death,  will  say :  "  I  pray  not  for  ungodly 
children,  but  for  this  child,  who  served  thee  before  all  others," 
without  meaning  to  imply  that  the  others  are  not  to  be  prayed 
for.  The  passage,  1  John  v.  16,  which  might  otherwise  be 
compared,  presents  accordingly,  no  suitable  parallel.  But  in 
V.  16,  there  is  a  like  motive  assigned  for  granting  the  petition, 
and  in  v.  20  there  is  an  indirect  prayer  for  those  yet  belonging 
to  the  "world,"  z6<t//oc,  cf  the  last  words  of  v.  21,  23.  Calvin 
and  Melancthon  both  find  in  the  words  a  committing  of  the 
non-elect  to  the  judgment  of  God,  the  opposite  view  is  ex- 
pressed in  a  pleasing  manner  by  Luther:  "How  squares  his 
refusal  to  pray  for  the  world  with  his  teaching  us.  Matt.  v.  44, 
that  we  are  to  pray  even  for  our  enemies  ?  This  is  in  brief  the 
answer :  to  pray  for  the  world  and  not  to  pray  for  the  world, 
must  both  be  right  and  good.  For  soon  after  he  says  himself: 
^Neither  pray  I  for  these  alone,  hut  for  them  also  which  shall 
believe  on  me  through  their  word.'  These  very  persons  must  yet 
be  of  the  world,  he  must  therefore  pray  for  the  world  for  the 
sake  of  those  who  are  yet  to  come  forth  from  the  world.  St. 
Paul  was  certainly  of  the  world,  w^hen  he  persecuted  and 
killed  Christians,  yet  St.  Stephen  prayed  for  him,  and  he  was 
converted.  Thus,  too,  Christ  himself  prayed  on  the  cross, 
(Luke  xxiii.  34.)  It  is  then  true,  that  he  prays  for  the  world 
and  does  not  pray  for  the  world ;  but  this  is  the  distinction : 
In  the  same  way  and  the  same  degree  in  which  Christ  prays 
for  them  that  are  his,  he  does  not  pray  for  the  world." 

V.  10.  In  the  fact  that  the  Disciples  belong  to  the  Father, 
is  embraced  their  belonging  to  the  Son,  the  Son  consequently 
is  glorified  in  them.  What  species  of  glorification  is  meant  ? 
Verse  22,  perhaps  also  v.  24,  xv.  8,  is  to  be  brought  in.  As  in 
V.  22,  the  conferring  of  the  "glory,"  oo^a,  on  the  Disciples  is 
mentioned  as  the  completion  of  the  unity,  we  cannot  imagine 
that  any  detached  manifestations  of  glory,  such  as  were  pre- 


Intercession  for  the  first  Disciples.  369 

sented  in  the  miracles,  or  in  the  great  operations  of  the  Spirit, 
arc  there  meant,  but  the  expression  must  be  taken  with  a 
compass  wide  enough  to  embrace  in  it  the  glory  of  the  eternal 
world.  That  "glory"  in  its  principle,  was  in  the  Disciples 
who  had  received  the  word  with  susceptible  hearts,  just  as 
really  a  present  thing  as,  according  to  xv.  3,  the  purity  was. 
The  full  unfolding  of  it  is  reserved  for  eternity,  (Col.  iii.  3,  seq.) 

V.  11-13.  The  intercession  is  first  directed  to  the  preserva- 
tion of  the  Disciples  in  that  which  they  already  possessed.  As 
preservation  from  seduction  into  sin  is  spoken  of,  the  Father 
has  the  predicate  "holy,"  dyce,  applied  to  him.  The  difficult 
reading  uj  in  the  dative,  which  has  arisen  from  the  noun  just 
used  being  in  that  case,  is  placed  alike  by  the  external  testimony 
and  by  its  own  difficulty,  beyond  doubt,  and  is  preferable  to 
the  received  o-^c,  as  well  as  to  the  reading  o.  Instead  of  the 
"word,"  /.oyo;;,  of  Christ,  in  which  they  were  to  be  kept,  the 
subject  of  that  w^ord,  the  "name  of  God,"  ro  6vo[j.a  z.  ^eou,  is 
here  mentioned,  (v.  6.) — In  his  very  prayer  there  is  a  glimpse 
of  a  sad  remembrance  of  his  betrayer.  That  the  Scripture 
might  be  fulfilled,  he  is  lost,  and  that,  too,  although  he  had 
been  given  by  God  to  the  Redeemer,  that  is,  had  been  led  to 
him  by  an  inward  drawing  of  the  heart,  and  although  every- 
thing had  been  done  by  the  Saviour  for  his  preservation — thus 
it  appears  that  Judas  was  not  an  involuntary  instrument  of  a 
divine  decree.  "That  the  Scripture  might  be  fulfilled,"  7va 
Tzlr^piDdfi  -rj  y[K,  a  general  reference  to  the  Scripture,  and  the 
Scripture  is  the  concrete  expression  for  the  divine  decree,  cf. 
Matt.  xxvi.  24.  and  Luke  xxii.  22,  with  each  other.  We  are 
perfectly  justified  in  adducing  this  passage  as  proof,  that  a 
susceptibility  may  be  presupposed  in  the  case  of  Judas.  The 
expression  ufoc  r^c  dTKohcai:,  2  Thess.  ii.  3,  used  of  Anti-Christ, 
designates  him  to  whom  druohca  pertains,  he  has  incurred  it, 
and  the  dTzcohzo  shows  that  dTztohea  does  not  here  mean  moral 
corruption,  but  the  misery  which  is  the  result  of  it,  (John  vi. 
39.) — V.  13  shows  that  Christ  is  conscious  of  the  effects  which 
will  be  wrought  by  the  reminiscence  of  this  prayer;  on  j  ;fa/>« 
TtzKli^pcDvac  and  /y  /«,'>«  q  ifiq^  see  on  iii.  29,  xv.  11. 

V.  14-16.  The  motive  of  the  prayer  for  their  protection  is 
that  they  bear  the  same  principle  within  them  as  our  Lord 


370  Chap.  XVIL.  —  y.  17-21.- 

himself,  a  principle  conflicting  with  the  world  and  rebuking  it, 
(iii.  20,  vii.  7,)  and  that  they,  therefore,  cannot  escape  persecu- 
tion. Persecution,  however,  is  not  to  be  overcome  by  faint- 
hearted flight,  but  by  manly  strength  is  to  be  overcome. 
Calvin:  Vult  Deus,  suos  certare,  sed  non  patitur  lethaliter 
vulnerari,  "  God  wills  that  his  people  should  do  battle,  but  he 
permits  them  not  to  be  wounded  unto  death."  Luther:  "They 
are  not  to  depart  from  the  world  with  me,  for  I  have  more  work 
for  them  to  do,  to  wit:  that  they  make  my  little  flock  larger." 
Beza,  Bengel,  De  Wette,  appealmg  to  1  John  ii.  13,  v.  19,  take 
ix  TOO  TTouTjfjou  as  masculine,  ("from  the  evil  one,")  but  there  is 
nothing:  in  the  connection  to  favor  that  view. 

V.  17-19.  To  the  negative  intercession  for  their  preserva^ 
lion  is  attached  the  positive  one  for  their  confirmation.  Ac- 
cording to  V.  18,  it  has  become  their  high  calling  to  continue 
the  work  of  Christ  on  earth,  in  the  midst  of  an  opposing  world, 
(xx.  21.)  For  this  they  need  a  consecration,  and  this  consecra- 
tion they  receive  through  the  principle  of  the  ^.oj'oc,  "word  "  of 
Christ  imparted  to  them,  (xv.  3 ;)  we  are  consequently  to  take 
dhj&sia,  as  that  which  the  word  of  Christ  contains;  the  second 
dk^&eca,  in  v.  17,  equivalent  to  -^  d^&sia,  may  designate  the 
absolute  truth.  To  this  sanctification  through  the  word  is 
added  here  another  means  of  consecration,  to  wit :  the  sacrifi- 
cial death  of  Christ.  "-Jycd^co  in  the  present  with  urcip  can  only 
be  understood  of  Christ's  self-consecration  to  his  sacrificial 
death,  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  represents  him  indeed  as  at 
once  sacrifice  and  priest.  Over  against  this  dycd^co  the  dyid- 
^eadac  on  the  part  of  the  Apostles  designates  the  consecration, 
their  official  consecration,  (x.  36,)  which,  however,  comprehends 
sanctification.  On  the  other  side,  also,  the  self-consecration  of 
Christ  rests  upon  his  moral  holiness  ;  by  this  fact  we  explain 
the  xai.  To  this  xal  and  the  conformation  in  love  expressed 
by  it,  Theophylact  and  Euthymius  attach  the  meaning  presented 
in  the  proposition,  "  so  that  they  also  in  the  service  of  the  truth 
may  be  consecrated  to  death."  Olshausen,  too,  now  says  that 
the  most  obvious  meaning  certainly  is:  "Christ  consecrates 
himself,  in  order  that  they  through  him  may  be  consecrated, 
that  is,  may  be  hallowed,"  but  the  thought  is  then  connected 
with  it,  that  at  the  same  time,  they  in  common  with  himself, 


Intercession  for  all  (including  future)  Believers.   371 

are  to  lay  down  their  lives  out  of  love.  But  there  is  certainly 
nothing  that  offers  any  intimation  of  an  idea  of  this  kind,  in 
fact  by  the  addition  of  iu  dlrj&da  it  is  excluded.  But  how  are 
we  to  understand  Iv  dXr^d$ea  ?  As  the  article  is  wanting,  Chry- 
sostom,  Lulher,  Calvin,  Zwingle,  Meyer,  take  it  adverbially  in 
antithesis  to  the  Old  Testament  sacrifices.  The  retrospect, 
however,  to  v.  17,  cannot  well  be  mistaken,  a  fact  in  view  of 
which  the  article  can  be  dispensed  with  here.  'A'v  must  not  be 
translated  "  through  "  in  this  passage,  since  the  sacrificial  death 
of  Christ  is  here  represented  as  that  which  consecrates ;  if  it 
be  translated  "in,"  it  designates  either  the  sphere  of  their 
activity,  (Gerhard,)  or  the  element  of  their  life,  "  so  that  they 
may  be  sanctified  in  their  possession  of  the  truth,"  thus  the 
death  of  Jesus  Christ,  which  mediates  the  sending  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  is  designated  as  the  highest  agent  of  sanctification 
through  the  word,  Bucer :  Ego  hac  causa  ut  illi  per  veritatem 
sanctijicati  sint  —  meipsum  modo  sanctificaho  tibi  in  cruce  immo- 
latum,  '^that  they  may  he  sanctified  through  the  truth,  I  now 
sanctify  to  thee  myself  sacrificed  upon  the  cross." 

Intercession  for  all  (including  future)  Believers. 
V.  20-26. 

V.  20,  21.  The  hosts  of  all  those,  who  not  until  after  his 
own  death,  (xii.  24,)  shall  enter,  through  the  preaching  of  the 
Apostles,^  into  the  kingdom  of  God,  rise  before  the  conscious- 
ness of  Christ,  his  desires  for  them  are  summed  up  in  the 
single  petition  for  their  unity  with  him  and  the  Father.  And 
this  unity  is  infinitely  more  than  mere  unanimity,  since  it  rests 
upon  unity  of  spirit  and  life,  and  the  perfect  communion  of  all 
good  things  pertains  to  its  manifestations  ;  according  to  v.  22, 
even  the  unity  of  the  "glory."  "We  are,  therefore,  compelled 
to   say,   that   although   that   unity  of   doctrine   of  which   the 

1  Calvin:  Vae  Papistis,  quos  non  pudeat,  execrabilcm  blasphemiam  vomcre,  nihil 
nisi  auibiguam  et  flexiloquum  habcri  in  scriptiira,  itaque  sola  ecclcsiie  traditio  illis 
credcndi  magistra  est.  Sed  nos  memiucrimus,  solam  a  filio  dei  uiiico  judice  probari 
fidera,  quae  ex  npostolorum  doctrina  coiicipitnr,  "  woe  to  the  Papists,  who  are  not 
ashamed  to  vomit  forth  the  execrable  blaspiiemy,  that  the  Scriptures  contain  noth- 
ing that  is  not  ambiguous  and  capable  of  distortion,  and  that,  couse(|ueiitly,  the 
tradition  of  the  Church  is  sole  mistress  of  what  they  are  to  believe.  But  we  should 
remember,  that  the  Son  of  God,  our  only  judge,  approves  of  that  fuith  alone  which 
is  received  from  the  teaching  of  the  Apostles.' 


372  Chap.  XVII.— v.  22-24. 

Catholic  Church  makes  so  much,  (though  it  is  not  even  a  unity 
of  individuals  in  faith,)  must  be  looked  upon  as  an  element 
pertaining  to  this  unity  of  faith  among  believers,  yet  such  a 
unity  of  doctrine,  without  the  unity  of  life  and  of  faith  on  the 
part  of  all  the  individuals,  comes  amazingly  short  of  a  fulfill- 
ing of  this  solemn  prayer  of  our  Lord.  If  we  apprehend  the 
unity  as  possessing  a  profundity  like  the  one  described,  then 
love  is  an  essential  manifestation  of  it,  and  the  declaration 
that  the  world  shall  recognize  his  Disciples  by  their  love  to  one 
another,  (xiii.  35,)  is  comprehended  in  the  words,  "that  the 
world  may  believe  that  thou  hast  sent  me,"  I'va  b  x6afio(; 
7tiaT£U(T7j  xtL  and  in  those  of  v.  23,  7ua  ycvioaxr^  xrX.  "  that  the 
world  may  know  that  thou  hast  sent  me,  &c." 

V.  22,  23.  The  unity  of  the  principle  in  the  Father,  the  Son 
and  believers,  creates  the  presumption  that  there  is  also  a  unity 
of  endowments,  their  "glory,"  doga,  itself  is  alike.  The  con- 
nection, therefore,  neither  allows  us,  with  Augustine,  to  refer 
do^a  abstractly  to  immortality,  nor  with  Chrysostom,  Grotius, 
Brentius,  to  the  power  of  working  miracles,  nor  with  Calovius, 
to  the  glory  of  unanimity,  (Chrysostom  also  gives  prominence 
to  this,)  nor  with  Calvin,  merely  to  internal  glory ;  it  is  rather 
to  be  understood,  byway  of  eminence,  of  the  perfect  unfolding 
of  the  oo^a  in  the  eternal  world,  as  also  the  further  expansion 
of  the  thought  in  v.  24  shows.  The  idea  of  unity  is  expressed 
in  a  yet  stronger  way  in  v.  23,  it  is  perfect  unity,  mediated 
through  a  communicatory  love  of  God,  which  pertains  with  no 
less  strength  to  believers  than  to  Christ,  their  first-born  brother, 
(Rom.  viii.  20.)  As  the  emphasis  is  laid  upon  the  unity,  the 
TSTshuofiivoc  ualv  must  be  understood  adverbially,  "completely 
one."  The  Evangelist,  in  his  first  Epistle,  too,  frequently 
uses  the  verb,  zezEXeiiorac,  where  we  would  look  for  the  adject- 
ive, 1  John  ii.  5,  iv.  12,  17,  18,  cf.  ecvo.c  ec^  eu,  1  John  v.  8. 
Since  here  also,  the  remoter  aim,  that  of  making  an  impression 
on  the  unbelieving  world,  is  mentioned,  a  doubt  might  be  ex- 
cited whether  doga  extends  to  the  glory  of  the  heavenly  world, 
but  the  scruple  is  removed  by  the  observation,  that  it  is  not  in 
fact  a  heavenly  one  merely.  Mention  has  been  made  in  the 
remarks  on  xiii.  35,  of  the  strong  impression  created  in  the 
minds  of  the  heathen  by  the  mutual  love  of  the  early  Chris- 


Intercession  for  all  (including  futuue)  Belikvkrs.   873 

tians ;  thei*e  is  remarkable  tesilmony  given  by  the  JDoininican 
Lilenstein,  the  bitter  enemy  of  the  Waldenses,  in  regard  to 
their  spiritual  36^a,  "glory:"  Boni  in  moribus  et  vita,  veraces 
in  sermone,  in  caritate  fraterna  unanimes  tantum  quod  fides 
eorum,  etc.,  "pure  in  their  morals  and  life,  truthful  in  speech, 
of  one  accord  in  brotherly  love,  onli/  that  their  faith,  &c,,  (Leger, 
Gesch.  der  Waldenser,  p.  502.)  Many  in  that  period  were  led 
to  the  faith  by  contemplating  a  testimony  of  this  sort.  As 
regards  the  extent  of  the  conception  of  unity,  Luther  says: 
"  Thou  and  I,  he  would  say,  are  one,  in  one  divine  essence  and 
majesty;  after  the  same  example  they  shall  also  be  one  among 
one  another,  and  that,  too,  in  such  wise,  that  this  same  unity 
shall  be  one  in  us,  that  is,  be  incorporated  in  me  and  thee ;  in 
brief,  that  they  all  be  one,  and  one  only,  in  us  both,  yea,  so 
completely  '  one  bread,'  that  they  have  all  that  thou  and  I 
are  able  to  have ;  consequently  he  prays  that  u'e  also  may 
become  partakers  of  the  divine  nature,  as  St.  Peter  says,  2  Peter 
i.  4;  for  although  the  Father  and  Christ  are  one  in  another 
way,  a  way  more  sublime  and  incomprehensible,  in  virtue  of 
the  divine  essence,  yet  we  so  possess  all  this  that  it  is  ours  and 
is  enjoyed  by  us." 

V.  24.  According  to  our  view,  there  is  in  this  verse  a 
further  expansion  of  what  had  been  said  in  v.  22,  in  regard  to 
the  "glory."  di/uo  is  not  always  an  expression  of  the  controll- 
ing will,  but  also  of  the  wish,  (1  Cor.  xiv.  5,)  but  a  mere  velim 
would  not  be  strong  enough  here,  the  Son  wills — but  in  unity 
with  the  Father.  "We  might  feel  tempted  to  take  &s.copziv,  as 
idzlu  has  already  been  taken,  (viii.  51,  vi.  40,)  in  the  sense,  "to 
experience,  become  conscious  of;"  but  as  the  being  together  in 
space  is  mentioned,  it  is  preferable  to  adhere  to  the  image,  and 
to  regard  believers  as  the  beholders.  A  dependence  of  their 
blessedness  on  that  of  the  Son  is  thereby  established,  but  it 
may  be  asked  whether  there  also  be  a  distinction  of  degree. 
Ambrose :  volo,  inquit,  ut  sint  mecum,  non  ut  sedeant  mecum, 
uhi  ego,  non  quomodo  ego,  ut  vidcant  claritatem  mcam,  non  ut 
habeant,  "I  will,  he  says,  that  they  be  with  me,  not  that  they 
may  sit  with  me,  tvhere  I  am,  not  as  I  am,  that  they  may  see  my 
glory,  not  that  they  may  hace  it."  On  the  contrary  Euthymius  : 
cua  dxTc  iu  rs^  ,3aaihia  auu,  or^/.ouoz:  aufL^aacXeuouTe:;,  "that 
z  '  33 


374  Chap.  XVH.  —  v.  25,26. 

they  may  be  in  thy  kingdom,  clearly,  reigning  with  thee."  This 
has  also  the  analogy  of  Scripture  for  it,  2  Tim.  ii.  12,  Rev.  iii. 
21.  Does  not  the  eluac  [itr  auroD,  also,  hint  at  this  ?  We  may 
say  then  with  Bengel :  ut  spectent  fruentes,  "  that  they  may 
behold  it  in  fruition."  What  befalls  the  "Captain  of  our 
salvation,"  dpyrifb;;  r^c  (Tcozyjpia^,  is  also  consummated  in  them 
that  are  his,  through  their  connection  with  him.  Luther:  "We 
should  make  this  sentence  our  pillow  and  a  bed  of  down  for 
our  souls,  and  with  a  glad  heart  repair  to  it  when  the  happy 
hour  draws  nigh,"  cf.  also,  2  Tim.  ii.  12,  Eph.  ii.  6, 1  Pet.  iv.  13. 
V.  25,  26.  At  the  close  there  is  yet  one  more  glance  at  the 
opposition  between  the  world  and  the  Church.  Aixato^,  as  a 
predicate  of  God,  designates  in  all  other  places  his  retributive 
justice,  how  then  are  we  to  understand  xai  before  6  xoafiozt 

1)  Lampe  and  Augustine :  "  Thou  art  righteous,  therefore  thou 
hast  withdrawn  from  the  evil  world  a  knowledge  of  thee." 
Eisner:     "Although   the  world   knows   thee    not,    yet,    &c." 

2)  According  to  Chrysostom  and  Winer,  adversativelj'-,  "and 
yet."  Chrysostom:  doxtc  d'ja-j(^zpa'tviov  raJna  }Jyeip,  on  rbv  ouTa)(; 
dya&bv  X.  dtxacov  obx  /jd^ehjaav  iTicyvcovat ;  "he  seems  to  utter  the 
words  as  if  unable  to  endure  it,  that  they  were  unwilling  to 
know  Him  who  was  so  good  and  righteous ;"  according  to 
Winer,  p.  416,  (tr.  347,)  the  discourse  breaks  off,  Christ  would 
say :  "O  righteous  Father,  thou  hadst  designed  this  glory  for  all, 
and  —  yet  the  world  has  not  known  thee."  But  would  we 
expect  the  predicate  "righteous"  in  such  a  case,  and  not  rather 
"gracious?"  3)  According  to  Meyer,  xaj  means  "even,"  and 
a  reference  to  xaza[:iolrj  xoajxoo  is  designed,  but  who  would 
expect  such  a  reference  here,  when  xbafxoc.  in  this  passage  is 
used  in  a  moral  signification,  and  in  the  other  in  a  phj^sical  one. 
Neander  consequently  decides  for  the  meaning  "holy,"  and 
appeals  to  xvi.  10,  1  John  ii.  29,  iii.  7, 10.  "  O  Father  who  art 
holy,  and  whom  the  world  knoweth  not;"  but  the  sentence 
cannot  be  regarded  as  capable  of  being  resolved  into  the 
adjective  phrase,  "  O  Father,  holy,  and  by  the  world  unknoivn" 
the  tfio  OS  XT?.,  at  once  excludes  such  a  possibility.  The  Vul- 
gate, Luther  and  Beza,  wholly  omit  the  word  which  gives  the 
difiicult3\  Ileumann  first  struck  upon  the  right  track  of  exposi- 
tion, and  recently  De  Wette :  "  I  believe  that  by  the  xac — xac  the 


Intercession  for  all  (including  future)  Believers.   375 

Evangelist  meant  to  unite  things  dissimilar,  as  in  vi.  36,  xv.  24, 
but  afterward  changed  the  construction."  Liicke  has  there- 
upon drawn  attention  to  the  fact,  that  in  the  classics,  also, 
re  —  ds  and  xac  —  di  are  used,  and  in  exactly  the  cases  in 
which  there  is  a  negation  in  one  of  the  two  propositions, 
(Hartung  on  the  Particles,  i.  p.  92 ;  Rost,  Greek  Grammar,  6th 
ed.  p.  725.)  Tliere  lies  then  in  the  words,  an  appeal  to  the 
retributive  justice  of  God,  to  decide  judicially  between  the 
two  generations  opposed  to  each  other,  between  the  world  and 
the  children  of  God.  The  upward  looking  to  the  God  who 
rules  in  righteousness,  excites  at  the  close  of  the  prayer  the 
assurance  of  the  final  triumph  of  the  kingdom  of  truth. 

After  this  triumphant  elevation,  soaring  over  all  conflict,  it 
certainly  is  surprising  to  witness  the  following  of  an  hour  of 
dejection  like  that  in  Gethsemane.  The  criticism  which  is 
adverse  to  the  Gospel  of  John,  has  regarded  itself,  therefore,  as 
justified  the  more  in  calling  into  question  the  genuineness  of 
this  prayer,  and  the  historical  apprehension  of  the  frame  of  our 
Saviour's  mind  which  it  gives.^  In  fact,  the  credibility  of  the 
narrative  of  the  agony  in  Gethsemane,  has  just  as  little  been 
acknowledged  by  it,  as  that  of  the  delineation  of  this  triumph- 
ant exaltation.  (Strauss'  Life  of  Jesus,  ii.  454,  4th  ed.)  That 
the  delineation  of  John  originated  with  a  writer  whose  concern 
it  was  to  "embellish,"  and  at  a  time  when  the  terrible  features 
of  the  death  of  Cljrist  had  receded  far  behind  its  glorious  ones, 
of  course  (according  to  this  criticism,)  allows  of  being  made 
out  quite  a  probable  matter.  K,  however,  the  prayer  given  by 
John,  and  his  silence  in  regard  to  the  agony,  are  simply  to  be 
set  to  tlie  account  of  an  author  intent  upon  embellishment, 
how  is  it  that  the  same  author,  chap.  xii.  27,  seq.  has  men- 
tioned an  agony  of  soul  entirely  similar  to  the  one  in  Geth- 
semane ?  Does  not,  too,  the  hour  of  suffering  which  pressed 
upon  the  Saviour,  appear,  according  to  xiii.  27,  as  something  so 
fearful,  that  he  longs  for  the  hastening  of  the  catastrophe  ?  On 
the  other  hand:  "Does  not  that  which  the  synoptical  Gospels 
detail,  the  institution  of  the  Lord's  Supper  as  a  pledge  of  his 
abiding  communion  with  the  Church  founded  by  him,  does  it  not 
testify  of  the  very  same  predominant  thoughts  in  which  the  soul 

1  Tliere  is  an  evidence  of  the  genuineness  of  the  prayer  in  xviii.  9,  which  aee. 


376  Chap.  XVn.  — v.  25,  20. 

of  Christ  found  repose,  the  same  which  are  testified  of  in  John 
by  these,  his  last  discourses  with  his  Disciples,  and  by  his  last 
prayer  ?"  (Neander.)  Does  he  not  immediately  after  the  agony 
in  Gethsemane,  appear  before  his  judges  in  the  greatest  eleva- 
tion of  soul  ?  We  dare  not,  however,  in  vindicating  this  fluctua- 
tion of  his  frame  of  mind,  draw  in  that  unphilosophical  and 
nntheological  conception  of  the  lamented  Olshausen,  that  there 
was  an  involuntary  ebbing  and  flowing  of  divine  power — a 
conception  which  he  also  applies  to  the  narrative  of  the  temp- 
tation. It  is  enough  simply  to  refer  in  part  to  the  fact,  that 
where  no  stoical  eradication  of  the  affections  has  taken  place, 
tbe  change  of  outward  situation  will  also  beget  an  internal 
succession  of  frames  of  mind,  and  in  part  to  the  fact,  that  a 
certain  necessity,  at  once  physical  and  psychical  exists,  of 
giving  way  momentarily  to  grief  in  order  to  overcome  it.  Cf. 
Dettinger,  "The  Agony  of  Jesus  in  Gethsemane,"  in  the 
Tubing.  Zeitschr.  1838,  p.  Ill,  seq.;  Neander,  Leben  Jesus,  p. 
669,  3d  ed.  (M'Clintock  and  Blumenthal's  tran.  §  279.) 

We  shall  only  add  in  closing,  a  paraphrase  of  this  prayer: 
"  Father,  the  decisive  hour  is  come,  glorify  thy  Son,  that  he 
may  yet  more  perfectly  glorify  thee  in  the  entire  human  race, 
as  thou,  indeed,  hast  given  him  power  over  the  entire  human 
race,  the  power  of  imparting  to  it  everlasting  life.  For  in  this 
consisteth  life  that  passeth  not  away,  to  wit :  in  the  knowledge 
of  thee  as  the  only  true  God,  and  of  him  who  reveals  thee. 
As  far  as  I  have  hitherto  been  able  to  glorify  thee  upon  earth, 
I  have  done  so,  in  gathering  a  Church  unto  thee,  and  now 
glorify  thou  me  with  that  glory  which  I  possessed  eternally, 
and  but  for  a  brief  time  laid  aside.  What  thou  art,  I  have 
made  known  to  those  whom  thou  hast  brought  to  me,  and  who 
have  received  thy  word  ;  they  have  now  known  thee  in  me. 
For  these  I  now  pray  also,  for  them  who  are  thine,  and  at  the 
same  time  mine,  as  I  am  glorified  in  them ;  I  rise  to  thee,  but 
they  still  remain  in  the  world,  preserve  them  now  in  the  know- 
ledge of  thee.  While  I  was  among  them  I  kept  faithfully  all 
whom  thou  Icdst  to  me,  except  that  one  devoted  to  destruction, 
in  whose  fate  also,  however,  thy  fore-knowledge  hath  been  con- 
summated. Now  come  I  to  thee,  and  these,  my  intercessions, 
are  designed  to  consummate  their  joyousness  in  me.     In  the 


Intercession  for  all  (includino  future)  Believers.   377 

world  persecution  awaits  them,  they,  indeed,  belong  as  little  to 
it  as  do  I.  But  from  this  affliction  they  may  not  be  withdrawn, 
for  they  arc  to  convert  the  world,  and  I,  therefore,  pray  only 
that  thou  mayest  not  permit  them  to  sink  under  it,  that  thy 
word  of  truth  may  become  to  them  a  fountain  of  sanctifica- 
tion ;  yes,  they  are  sent  forth  into  the  world  to  continue  my 
work.  In  order  that  they  may  receive  the  consecration  in  the 
truth,  I  consecrate  myself  to  death  for  them.  But  I  pray  also 
for  all  who  shall  through  them  attain  unto  faith,  that  unity  may 
exist  between  them,  thee  and  me,  as  thou.  Father,  art  in  me 
and  I  in  thee :  thus  shall  the  world  recognize  that  it  is  thou 
who  hast  sent  me.  Yea,  my  own  glory  have  I  imparted  to 
them,  that  perfect  unity  may  exist  in  them,  and  that  the  world 
may  be  made  conscious  that  thou  embracest  them  and  me  in 
the  same  love.  Yes,  Father,  I  pray  that  those  whom  thou  hast 
brought  to  me  may  also  be  with  me  in  the  world  to  come,  and 
there  behold  my  eternal  glory.  Righteous  Father,  adjudicate 
between  us ;  there  is  the  world  which  knows  thee  not,  here  am 
I  who  know  thee,  and  those  whom  I  have  taught,  and  shall 
still  teach  to  know  thee,  that  thou  mayest  embrace  them  in  the 
same  love  in  which  thou  embracest  me,  and  that  I  may  abide 
in  them." 


33* 


CHAPTER   XVIII. 


Jesus  seized  in  Gethsemane. — v.  1-11.^ 

V.  1.  At  the  last  feast  Jesus  had  spent  his  nights  outside  of 
Jerusalem,  prohably  in  order  to  secure  himself  against  the 
snares  that  might  be  laid  for  him.  He  now  leaves  the  city  to 
repair  to  his  usual  place  of  resort,  (v.  2.)  In  the  vicinity  of 
the  city  he  had  followers,  (Matt.  xxi.  3 ;)  to  one  of  these 
belonged  the  garden  here  spoken  of,  and  which  was  probably 
connected  with  the  farm.  The  brook  Cedron  flowed  through 
a  deep  vale  to  the  east  of  the  city.  It  is  true,  most  of  the 
MSS.  give  the  accent  Kidpcov,  "Brook  of  Cedars,"  probably, 
however,  from  ignorance  on  the  part  of  the  transcribers,  instead 
of  TOO  Keopcov,  or  too  Kedpajvos;,  as  Josephus  declines  it. 

V.  2,  3.  The  transaction  of  Judas  with  the  Sanhedrim  is 
passed  over  by  the  Evangelist  as  a  matter  already  known  to  the 
reader.  As  the  matter  was  one  in  which  the  Jewish  superiors 
were  concerned,  the  Levitical  temple-watch  were  taken  along; 
the  military  attendance  is  mentioned  only  in  Mark  xiv.  51, 
where  the  vtaviaxoc  are  soldiers.  I-Ktipa,  the  Greek  name  for 
the  cohort,  which  formed  the  tenth  part  of  a  legion,  whose 
number  varied  at  different  times,  as  did  that  of  the  cohorts ;  in 
the  time  of  Vegetius,  the  cohorts  (with  the  exception  of  the 
first,)  consisted  of  555  men.  On  account  of  the  possibility  of 
an  insurrection,  the  Sanhedrim  had  found  it  advisable  to  call 
out  the  Roman  cohort,  also,  from  the  castle  of  Antonia.     The 

1  On  this  last  division  (the  history  of  the  passion  of  our  Lord,)  are  specially  to  be 
compared,  among  the  older  writers,  Bynaeus,  De  morte  Jesu  Cliristi,  Amst.  1G96,  2 
vols.;  among  the  more  recent,  Hess'  Lebens  geschichte,  "History  of  the  Life  of 
Jesus,"  3  vols.  Ou  Ch.  18,  Gurlitt's  Lectioues  in  N.  T.  Soec.  iv.  Hamb.  1805,  may 
be  used. 

(378) 


Jesus  seized  in  Getiisemane.  379 

way,  V.  29,  in  which  Pilate  comes  out  to  meet  the  members  of 
the  Sanhedrim,  seems  to  indicate  that  he  was  aware  of  their 
design.  We  are  not,  of  course,  to  suppose  that  the  entire  cohort 
is  meant;  it  is  just  as  we  would  say:  "he  called  in  the  police 
and  the  military."  In  consequence  of  the  responsible  nature 
of  the  transaction  the  Chiliarch,  also,  was  with  the  detachment, 
as  in  Acts  xxi.  32.  <?>av6c  in  the  older  dialect,  means  torch^  in  the 
later,  lantern,  hence  )Mfj.7:ddzi;  is  here  used  for  torches.  There 
was  full  moon,  it  is  true,  at  Easter,  still  there  were  particular 
localities  which  were  dark. 

Y.  4,  5.  According  to  the  Synoptists,  the  sign  which  Judas 
gave  1o  indicate  Jesus  to  them,  was  a  kiss;  Strauss,  De  Wette, 
consider  this  irreconcilable  with  John,  according  to  whom  Jesus 
offers  himself  for  recognition,  while  the  kiss  of  Judas  is  passed 
over  by  the  Evangelist  in  silence.  But  without  any  violence 
the  circumstance  may  be  taken  thus:  the  expression,  "went 
forth,"  i^u&cbv,  shows  that  Jesus,  when  he  put  the  question, 
came  from  the  bottom  of  the  garden  to  the  front  part  of  it,  (v. 
26  shows  that  the  scene  did  not  occur  outside  of  the  garden.) 
Judas  had  caused  the  troop  to  stop,  and  had  taken  several  steps 
toward  the  bottom  of  the  garden,  in  order  to  mark  Jesus ;  he 
then  returns  to  the  company  to  encourage  them  to  advance. 
The  Saviour  regards^  it  as  in  consonance  with  his  dignity  to 
advance  of  his  own  accord  to  meet  his  enemies.  In  this  mode 
of  conciliation  the  ii(T7rf/.u  may  certainly  lead  us  into  a  mis- 
take, for  in  accordance  with  it  Judas  might  be  regarded  as  an 
idle  spectator.  The  question  rises,  what  general  object  had  the 
Evangelist  in  this  remark  —  we  suppose  he  meant  to  intimate 
that  Judas  no  longer  considered  himself  as  one  of  the  Disciples. 
If  he  then,  after  giving  the  token  by  which  Christ  was  to  be 
recognized,  returned  to  the  company,  the  Evangelist  might 
write,  as  he  did,  to  intimate  the  part  which  Judas  played. 

V.  6.  The  older  view,  which  saw  in  the  falling  of  the  com- 
pany a  miracle  of  the  omnipotence  of  Jesus,  has  recently  been 
defended  by  Meyer,  Strauss,  Ebrard,  but  erroneously.  \l7:rp.&ov 
er'c  za  uziao)  means  that  the  immediate  effect  of  Christ's  coming 
forth,  was  simply  a  recoil  in  consternation :  the  most  natural 
way  to  take  it  is,  that  the  words  "  iliey  recoiled  and  fell,''  relate 
to  different  subjects,  that  those  in  front  recoiled,  and  some  of 


880  Chap.  XVni.— v.  7-14. 

those  in  the  hindmost  ranks  fell  down.  When  Strauss  observes 
that  it  is  hard  to  think  of  this  with  a  serious  face,  it  is  no  doubt 
true  that  silly  people,  all  the  world  over,  laugh  when  any  one 
gets  a  fall,  on  the  other  hand,  however,  those  that  are  serious 
will  in  the  scene  here  presented  certainly  think  less  of  the  fall 
than  of  the  cause  that  brought  it  about.  Other  cases  may  be 
cited  from  history,  in  which  the  dauntless  stepping  forth  of  a 
man  has  produced  a  great  impression  upon  his  persecutors,  the 
terrors  of  whose  guilty  conscience  were  aroused.  Such  cases 
were  those  of  Mark  Antony,  (Valerius  Maximus,  viii.  9,  2,) 
Marius  (Vellejus,  ii.  19,  3,)  and  Colign}^,  (Serranus,  Comm.  de 
statu  religionis  et  reipubl.  in  Gallia,  t.  iii.  p.  32.)  We  are 
reminded  in  this  passage  of  the  overwhelming  impression  pro- 
duced by  Christ,  at  an  earlier  date,  on  the  watch  of  the  temple, 
(ch.  vii.  46.) 

V.  7-9.  A  friendly  solicitude  for  his  Disciples  is  shown  by 
our  Lord  in  the  midst  of  his  own  danger,  so  that  in  this 
respect  also,  John  means  to  say,  the  word  of  our  Lord,  xvii. 
12,  received  a  fulfillment.  It  is  impossible  that  the  Evangelist 
could  have  been  ignorant  that  spiritual  protection  is  the  subject 
of  the  language  of  that  passage,  but  he  means  to  say,  that  the 
words  had  providentially  their  fulfillment  in  this  sense  also. 
He  treats  the  expression,  therefore,  as  he.does  that  of  Caiaphas, 
xi.  50,  and  there  lies  in  this  an  interesting  hint  as  to  the  mode 
in  which  Old  Testament  expressions  are  cited  b^-  the  Evange- 
lists. It  is  also  to  be  noticed,  that  had  that  praj^er  of  our  Lord 
been  the  invention  of  the  Evangelist,  he  could  not  have  refer- 
red in  this  way  to  that  expression. 

V.  10,  11.  The  other  Evangelists  mention  the  name  neither 
of  the  Disciple  who  did  the  violence,  nor  of  the  servant  who 
was  wounded ;  we  would  most  readily  expect  from  Peter  this 
rash  act,  originating  in  vehement  love  to  his  Lord,  and  the 
fact  that  John  knew  the  name  of  the  servant,  coincides  with 
the  notice  taken  in  v.  16  of  the  fact,  that  he  was  acquainted 
in  the  house  of  the  high  priest.  To  cotcov,  equivalent  to  ou;, 
is  used,  from  the  partiality  of  the  later  Greek  for  diminutives. 
According  to  Bengel  and  De  Wette,  the  expression,  to  Ttorjpiov, 
is  retrospective  to  what  had  passed  in  Gethsemane,  (Matt, 
xxvi.  89.) 


Christ  before  the  High  Priest — denied  by  Peter.    381 

Christ  before  the  High  Priest — is  denied  by  Peter. 

V.  12-27. 

V.  12-14.  According  to  the  Synoptists,  Jesus  had  a  hearing 
in  the  house  of  Caiaphas,  in  whose  house  also  Peter's  denial 
occurred ;  in  Jolin,  a  hearing  before  Annas  is  spoken  of,  in 
whose  palace,  consequently,  the  first  denial  by  the  Disciple 
would  have  taken  place,  and  the  first  mention  of  Christ's  being 
sent  from  Annas  to  Caiaphas,  is  in  v.  24.  Erasmus,  therefore, 
takes  V.  24  from  its  place  and  inserts  it  after  v.  13,  Cyrill  and 
Beza  read  it  twice,  putting  it  after  v.  13,  and  retaining  it  in  v. 
24.  Of  the  recent  writers,  some  attempt  to  bring  the  other 
Evangelists  into  unison  with  John,  the  majority  interpret  John 
in  accordance  with  the  S^nioptists.  According  to  Schleier- 
macher  and  Olshauseu,  all  three  denials  took  place  in  the  court 
of  Annas,  and  the  reproving  glance  of  our  Lord,  of  which  Luke 
speaks,  occurred  after  the  third  denial,  just  as  Christ  was  led 
from  Annas  to  Caiaphas.  It  is  the  opinion  of  Schweizer  also, 
that  John  alone  gives  the  narrative  correctly,  and  the  fact  that 
the  second  and  third  denial  are  detailed  after  the  mention  of 
Christ's  being  led  away,  v.  24,  he  accounts  for,  by  supposing 
Peter  still  to  have  remained  behind,  in  the  house  of  Annas, 
after  Jesus  had  been  led  away  to  Caiaphas.  But  if  Peter  would 
have  placed  himself  in  so  perilous  a  position  in  the  court  of 
Annas,  for  the  mere  purpose  of  seeing  what  the  issue  was 
going  to  be,  (Matt.  xxvi.  58,)  would  Peter,  after  Christ  bad 
again  been  taken  out  to  be  led  to  Caiaphas,  have  remained 
quietly  standing  by  the  fire  ?  Furthermore,  if  the  dpy^cepvji:, 
whose  servant,  according  to  v.  10,  Peter  wounded,  is  in  the 
service  of  Caiaphas,  would  that  relative  of  his  who  is  men- 
tioned in  V.  26,  have  been  in  the  service  of  Annas  ?  Besides, 
can  it  be  supposed  that  the  Synoptists  could  have  been  so  com- 
pletely in  error  iu  regard  to  the  locality  of  a  fact,  such  as  the 
denial  of  Peter,  which,  beyond  doubt,  was  universally  known 
at  that  time?  One  thing  certainly  favors  that  view,  to  wit: 
that  in  the  hearing  described  in  this  place,  there  is  no  mention 
made  of  that  which  was  the  main  thing  in  the  hearing  before 
Caiaphas,  that  is,  of  the  question  of  the  high  priest  which  led 


382  Chap.  XVm.  — v.  15-24.    . 

to  the  sentence  of  death.  Nevertheless,  we  feel  satisfied  tliat 
the  following  view  is  the  correct  one.  The  Evangelist,  by  the 
incidental  notice  in  regard  to  Caiaphas,  in  v.  13,  14,  was  not 
led  to  make  express  mention  of  the  taking  away  of  Christ  to 
Caiaphas,  and  first  brings  it  up  in  v.  24,  so  that  here  the  aorist, 
as  is  often  the  case,  especially  in  bringing  in  something  that  has 
been  omitted,  is  to  be  taken  in  the  sense  of  the  pluperfect, 
(Calvin,  De  Dieu,  Meyer,  Liicke,  De  Wette,  nor  is  Strauss  dis- 
inclined to  this  view.)  It  will  certainly  be  granted,  that  as 
Caiaphas  in  v.  13  is  called  d.pyiBpvj::,  the  dfjytzfjvjz  in  v.  15 
can  hardly  be  another  person;  why,  too,  is  there  this  fuller 
characterizing  of  Caiaphas,  if  it  was  not  he,  but  Annas,  who 
conducted  the  hearing?  It  may  in  fact  be  questioned,  whether 
V.  24  may  not  be  regarded  as  a  gloss,  since  other  parenthetic 
insertions  hardly  ever  occur  without  some  particle  like  ouv  de 
or  ro-p-  Cf  V.  5, 14,  ch.  vi.  23,  ix.  14,  xi.  2,  30,  51,  Matt.  xiv.  3. 
That  John  simply  mentions  the  preliminary  questions  in  the 
hearing  before  Caiaphas,  is  to  be  explained  by  the  fact,  that  he 
presumed  the  confession  of  Jesus  in  regard  to  his  dignity  as 
Messiah,  to  be  already  known  from  the  common  tradition;  that 
confession  made  before  Pilate,  which  Paul  mentions  as  com- 
monly known,  is  in  fact  the  same,  to  wit :  that  he  is  the  King 
Messiah,  (1  Tim.  vi.  13.)^  If,  now,  John  has  mentioned  noth- 
ing that  occurred  during  the  hearing  before  Annas,  it  is 
made  the  more  clear,  that  this  presentation  before  Annas  is  to 
be  regarded  as  a  mere  subordinate  act,  which  was  done,  per- 
haps, because  his  palace  was  at  hand,  and  there  was  an  inten- 
tion of  showins;  honor  to  a  man  who  had  himself  been  hisrh 
priest  for  several  years,  and  who  is  mentioned  in  Acts  iv.  6, 
before  Caiaphas,  as  dpytept'jz^  or  it  may  have  been  done  while 
they  were  waiting  for  the  Sanhedrim  to  assemble  with  Caiaphas. 
V.  15-18.  According  to  the  other  Evangelists,  also,  Peter 
follows  at  a  distance;  John  alone,  who  here,  also,  designates 
himself  indirectly,  makes  mention  of  what  more  immediately 
concerned  himself,  that  he  also  went  in  with  the  crowd,  and 
that  he  secured  an  entrance  for  Peter.  Among  the  Hebrews, 
women  were  the  porters  at  the  doors,  (Acts  xii.  13.)     The  four 

1  Chap.  xix.  7  presupposes  it  as  a  known  fact,  that  Jesus  had  been  condemned 
because  he  declared  himself  the  Son  of  God. 


Christ  before  the  High  Priest — denied  by  Peter,    383 

Evangelists  harmonize  in  the  narrative  of  a  threefold  denial  on 
the  part  of  Peter,  but  designate  in  difierent  ways  the  persons 
who  put  the  questions,  and  the  respective  localities.  Dr.  Paulus, 
in  order  to  do  fall  justice  to  the  difterence,  runs  the  number 
of  denials  up  to  eight ;  most  recently,  Ebrard  (ii.  p.  671,)  has 
brought  forward  the  facts  in  such  a  combination,  as  apparently 
to  justifj'  the  varying  statements,  each  in  its  kind.  At  his  very 
entrance  the  Disciple  seems  to  have  betrayed  himself  by  his  air 
of  anxiety.  The  lax  morality  of  rationalism  has  completely 
wiped  away  the  guilt  of  the  Disciple  in  his  denial.  In  Dr. 
Paulus  (Comm.  iii.  p.  649,)  we  have  this:  "Peter  of  course 
told  it7it)'uths,  but  not  lies,  because  none  of  the  persons  who 
questioned  him  had  any  business  to  take  him  to  task.  Nothing 
is  less  applicable  (!)  to  him  than  the  command  of  Jesus  to 
*  confess  him  before  men.'  "  Still  in  the  judgment  formed  of 
the  Disciple  it  is  too  often  left  out  of  account,  that  although  his 
lie  proceeded  from  a  cowardice  whose  origin  was  want  of  faith, 
nevertheless,  his  entrance  into  a  company  where  certain  death 
threatened  him  if  he  were  discovered  to  be  the  person  that  had 
wounded  Malchus,  resulted  from  a  courage  which  only  heart- 
felt love  to  Jesus  could  impart.  For  admirable  practical 
reflections  on  Peter's  denial,  consult  Melancthon  in  his  Disser- 
tation, De  lufirmitate  nostra,  and  Luther  and  Calvin. — The 
elevated  situation  of  Jerusalem  renders  it  so  cold  about  Easter, 
as  to  make  a  watch-fire  at  night  indispensable.  According  to 
Matt.  xxvi.  58,  Peter  merely  followed  to  know  at  once  what 
was  the  issue;  according  to  Luke  xxii.  61,  we  may,  however, 
suppose  that  the  hearing  occurred  in  an  open  room  in  the  lower 
storj^,  so  that  besides,  what  was  said  could  be  heard. 

V.  19-24.  It  is  natural  that  the  judicial  examination  should 
begin  with  preliminary  questions  like  those  here  mentioned. 
Christ,  who  left  Herod  and  Pilate  without  reply,  (Luke  xxiii.  9, 
John  xix.  9,)  here,  also,  regards  it  as  beneath  his  dignity  to 
answer  more  particularly,  as  there  was  no  disposition  on  the 
part  of  the  interrogators  to  know  the  truth.  His  answer,  which 
put  aside  the  question,  appeared  to  them  as  an  offense  against 
the  reverence  due  the  highest  Jewish  authority,  and  there 
follows  a  maltreatment  of  the  holy  one,  at  which  Chrysostom 
bursts  forth  in  the  words:    <pfJc^ov  obpavkj  harrjdt  j^,  zrj  tou 


384  Chap.  XYin.  — v.  25-32. 

deanoTOO  /laxpo&u/ila  xac  r^  raiu  douXcDU  d-yvo) fioauvrj !  "  shudder  O 
heaven,  be  astounded  O  earth,  at  the  long-suffering  of  the 
master,  and  the  crime  of  the  servants."  Christ  simply  appeals 
to  the  justice  of  his  cause;  there  lies  in  this  a  proof  that  Matt. 
V.  39  is  not  to  be  taken  by  the  letter. — On  v.  24,  see  above. 

V.  25-27.  According  to  Matthew,  Peter  first  confirms  the 
second  denial  with  an  oath,  and  the  third  with  repeated 
forswearing.  According  to  the  Synoptists,  he  was  recognized 
on  the  third  occasion  by  his  Galilean  dialect,  which  does  not 
exclude  John's  statement.  According  to  Luke,  the  cock 
crowed  at  the  third  denial,  and  at  that  moment  our  Lord, 
probably  as  he  was  conducted  through  the  fore-court  after  the 
hearing,  cast  on  the  Disciple  a  mournful  and  reproving  glance. 

First  hearing  before  Pilate. — v.  28-40. 

V.  28-32.  The  sentence  of  death  passed  by  the  Sanhedrim 
could  not  be  executed  without  permission  from  the  Governor 
of  the  province,  the  procession  therefore  goes  to  him.  The 
Pretorium  lay,  perhaps,  at  the  fortress  of  Antonia,  and  was 
possibly  the  former  palace  of  Herod,  see  Winer  on  the  word 
Richthaus.  Ilpcoi,  (as  Griesbach  and  Lachmann  read,)  the  fourth 
watch  of  the  night  before  morning  twilight;  about  six  o'clock 
the  judge  took  his  seat,  (xix.  14.)  On  Tva  (pdycDac,  see  what  is 
said  on  xiii.  1. — Pilate  now  makes  his  appearance  in  the  history, 
and  is  depicted  more  fully  by  John  than  by  the  other  Evan- 
gelists —  in  a  way  so  striking  in  its  psychological  features,  so 
consonant  with  what  we  know  from  other  sources,  of  Roman 
men  of  rank,  that  this  single  delineation  furnishes  in  itself  a 
remarkable  evidence  for  the  historical  character  of  the  Gospel. 
The  character  of  the  governor  is  given  in  our  remarks  on  v. 
38. — Jesus,  attended  by  a  guard,  was  conducted  into  the  interior 
of  the  palace,  Pilate  in  concession  to  the  religious  scraples  of 
the  Jews,  comes  out  to  make  the  examination ;  we  may  perhaps 
infer  from  this  question,  that  intimation  had  been  given  him  of 
the  contemplated  seizure  of  Jesus.  If  the  authorities  had  not 
regarded  him  as  worthy  of  death,  they  would  not  have  brought 
him  to  the  procurator,  as  none  except  sentences  in  criminal 
cases  needed  confirmation  by  him.     In  conformity  with  the 


First  hearing  before  Pilate.  385 

Koman  legal  usage,  which  was  followed  even  in  the  most  cor- 
rupt period,  (Acts  xxvi.  16,)  and  because  he  was  aware  of  the 
base  designs  of  the  Jewish  superiors,  (Matt,  xxvii.  18,)  Pilate 
demanded  a  statement  of  the  accusation.  Fearing  that  he 
would  not  comply  with  their  wishes,  they  refuse  to  give  it.  In 
keeping  with  his  character,  as  we  know  it  from  other  sources, 
he  returns  their  insolence  with  a  sneer,  (cf.  xxxix.  19,  vi.  19.) 
This  challenge  of  Pilate's  has  been  misunderstood  by  some 
writers,  who  have  inferred  from  it  that  the  Jews  must  have  had 
the  jus  vitre  et  necis,  "authority  to  inflict  capital  punishment," 
(Selden,  de  synedr.  1.  2,  c.  15 ;  Wagenseil,  Confut.  R.  Lipm.  p. 
299 ;  Bynteus,  De  Morte  Christi,  1.  3,  c.  1 ;  cf.  on  the  other  side, 
Iken,  Dissert,  ii.;)  they  help  themselves  out  of  the  difficulty 
presented  by  the  answer,  "  it  is  not  lawful  for  us  to  put  any 
man  to  death,"  ^fitv  obx  i^eazcv  xvL  by  giving  them  the  force 
that  on  high  feast  days  the  Jews  could  not  inflict  capital 
punishment.  But,  to  pass  over  other  proofs,  the  opposite  is  suffi- 
cientlj^  clear  from  Josephus,  (Antiquit.  xx.  9,  1,)  who  says,  that 
Annas  had  taken  advantage  of  the  absence  of  the  procurator, 
to  have  James,  6  dixaco^^  "  the  just,"  executed,  and  that  the 
charge  made  against  him  to  the  proeses  Albinus,  stated  that  "  it 
was  not  lawful  for  Annas  without  his  consent  to  convoke  a 
council  of  judges,"  d»-  oox  iqbv  -Jju  \4udi^co  y^copl::  r^c  ixeivoo 
yvoiycq^  xa&iaat  aovidptov.  The  Jews  were  compelled  by  the 
sneering  reply  of  Pilate,  to  bring  a  distinct  charge,  as  the  ques- 
tion of  the  governor,  v.  33,  shows,  and  at  this  point  comes  in 
Luke  xxiii.  2. — By  the  political  accusation,  that  Jesus  had  set 
himself  up  for  a  king,  they  hoped  soonest  to  succeed  ;  they  were 
induced,  indeed,  subsequently  to  turn  to  the  religious  aspect  of 
the  accusation,  (xix.  7,)  but,  neverthess,  go  back  again  to  the 
former,  (xix.  12,)  and  as  sedition  by  the  Eoman  law  was  punish- 
able with  crucifixion,  by  so  doing  they  bring  about  the  fulfill- 
ment of  the  prophetic  declarations  of  Jesus  in  regard  to  his 
death  on  the  cross,  (iii.  14,  viii.  28,  xii.  32,  especially  is  Matt, 
xvi.  24  remarkable,)  since  in  case  the  religious  accusation  had 
been  carried  through,  his  death  would  have  been  by  stoning. 
But  the  words  still  present  a  difficulty — John  already  traces 
the  fulfillment  of  tlie  prophecy  to  the  fact  that  the  Jews  were 
entirely  destitute  of  the  jus  gladii,  the  right  to  inflict  capital 

34 


386  Chap.  XVni.  — v.  33-37. 

punishment.  Are  we  to  suppose  that  a  Roman  procurator 
never  would  have  passed  sentence  of  death  on  an  offense  which 
was  capitally  punishable  by  the  Jewish  law  merely  ?  So  Nean- 
der  (p.  686,)  thinks.  But,  xix.  7,  they  urge  upon  him,  in  fact, 
their  Jewish  law ;  Annas  was  reproved  by  Albinus,  not  because 
he  had  passed  the  sentence  of  death,  but  because  he  had 
executed  it  on  his  own  authority ;  the  Romans  might,  as  they 
actually  did,  guarantee  them  their  ancestral  laws,  without 
warranting  them  to  inflict  on  criminals  the  punishment  enjoined 
by  law?^  That  the  Jews  preferred  urging  with  Pilate  the 
political  accusation,  seems  then  to  have  originated  in  the  hope 
of  attaining  their  object  more  quickly,  and  thus,  also,  John  seems 
to  have  had  in  mind,  as  his  narrative  implies,  though  he  does 
not  mention  it,  that  they  were  obliged  to  bring  the  political 
accusation  in  order  more  easily  to  obtain  the  Roman  sanction. 

V.  33-35.  The  accused  is  to  be  compelled  to  make  his  own 
confession.  "Art  thou  the  King  of  the  Jews,"  asks  Pilate,  and 
means,  therefore  :  the  well  known,  expected  one,  the  Messiah. 
Some  doubt  may  be  felt  as  to  the  precise  point  of  the  Saviour's 
counter-question.  According  to  the  view  of  the  more  recent 
writers,  Christ  wished  to  ascertain  whether  Pilate  used  the 
term  in  its  Roman,  that  is,  its  political  sense,  or  in  its  Jewish 
theocratic  sense,  that  he  might  be  guided  by  the  reply,  in 
giving  an  affirmative  or  negative  to  the  question,  (Meyer, 
Olshausen,  Neander.)  But  can  this  thought  lie  in  the  words  ? 
"Was  not  "the  King  of  the  Jews,"  in  the  Jewish  sense  also,  a 
political  ruler?  According  to  Le  Clerc,  (Heumann  takes  a 
similar  view,)  Christ  wishes  to  ascertain  whether  his  question 
originated  in  a  striving  after  truth,  or  was  merely  inquisitorial. 
It  is  better  with  the  ancient  writers,  (as  early  as  Chrysostom,) 
to  regard  the  object  of  the  question  as  this,  whether  Pilate 
himself  had  seen  Christ  presenting  himself  in  any  such  way, 
as  he  would  expect  from  that  King  of  the  Jews  ;  it  is  an  indi- 
rect reference  to  the  fact,  that  the  governor  well  knew  the  base- 
lessness of  the  charge.  Calvin  :  Responsum  Christi  hue  tendit, 
in  ea  accusatione  nihil  esse  coloris,  "the  point  of  Christ's  reply 

1  "In  accordance  with  the  Romish  policy,  a  governor  was  certainly  not  directed  to 
rescue  from  the  religious  fanaticism  of  a  subjugated  people,  a  victim  regarded  apart 
from  this,  with  indiifereuce,"  Hase,  Leben  Jesu,  §  117,  3d  ed. 


First  hearing  before  Pilate.  887 

is,  that  this  accusation  was  without  any  color  of  truth."  With 
this  corresponds  also  the  rejoinder  of  the  governor,  that  he  had 
never  troubled  himself  about  the  Messiah.  Bengel :  Ilanc 
(posteriorem  qusestionis)  partem  voluit  lesus  observari  a  Pilato, 
Pilatus  priorem  partem  arripit  non  sine  iracundia,  "  this  latter 
part  of  the  question  Jesus  wishes  to  be  noticed  by  Pilate ; 
Pilate,  not  without  anger,*  catches  at  the  first  part." 

V.  36,  37.  Jesus  confesses  to  his  regal  dignity,  but  not  in 
the  worldly  sense.  "  Of  this  world,"  ix  r.  x.  r.  can  only  desig- 
nate dependence  on,  connection  with,  and  means,  consequentlj'-, 
"bears  not  the  character  of  earthly  relations  to  the  world,"  or 
with  a  yet  stricter  sense,  to  which  ivzsu&sv  alludes,  "  has  not 
descended  from  these  relations  to  the  world,  has  not  come  to 
me  according  to  the  laws  of  the  world."  ' Nyioui^^ouzo,  not  with 
Beza,  certassent,  they  would  have  fought,  but :  thoy  would  fight 
— from  the  present  moment,  and  with  respect  to  the  fact,  that 
the  moment  for  surrendering  Jesus  had  not  yet  come,  (v.  31, 
xix.  16.)— The  inference  drawn  by  the  judge  is  probably  not  to 
be  regarded  as  a  stroke  of  irony  against  the  abject  appearance 
of  Jesus.  O'jxouu  means  therefore^  ooxouv  means  nonne  and 
nonne  ergo,  not  and  not  therefore.  (Sophocles,  Ajax,  v.  79, 
cf.  Passow.  4th  ed.)  (and  Liddell  and  Scott's  Greek  English 
Lexic.  based  on  Passow.  Tr. )  In  all  the  grandeur  of  his  con- 
sciousness, the  Saviour  now  claims  for  himself  a  kingdom,  but 
— in  the  realm  of  truth.  To  reveal  the  absolute  truth  in  the 
highest  of  all  spiritual  spheres,  the  religious,  is  the  calling  of 
his  life.  Luther  has  taken  the  ore  demonstratively,  in  the  sense 
of  "that,"  and  has  not  expressed  it,  but  it  is  causal.  AVc  r.  x. 
ipy.,  in  its  fullest  significance,  (as  we  explained  it  on  iii,  34,) 
pointing,  indeed,  to  his  higher  origin,  so  that  it  serves  to  make 
complete  the  YVfivvrjimc.  "To  be  of  the  truth,"  elvat  ix  z.  dX. 
(1  John  ii.  21,  iii.  19,)  is  equivalent  to  ix  deoi>,  "  to  be  of  God," 
see  viii.  47,  x.  24,  27.  Does  there  lie  in  this  call  what  is  found 
in  it  by  Chrj'sostom  ?  i-iaTrazai  oca  zo'jzcov  xal  rzzt&v.  yevsa&ai 
Tcov  hyoixiuwv  a.x(toazrjv,  "he  draws  him  by  these  words,  and 
persuades  him  to  become  a  hearer  of  the  things  spoken."  Or 
shall  we  say  with  Bengel :  Provocat  a  crecitate  Pilati  ad  captum 
fidelium,  "he  appeals  from  the  blindness  of  Pilate  to  the  dis- 


388  Chap.  XVIII.— v.  38-40. 

cernment  of  believers  " — in  the  same  way  as  in  the  last  clause 
of  Matt.  xi.  19 

V.  38.  Our  judgment  in  regard  to  the  personal  character  of 
the  governor,  depends  especially  on  the  way  in  which  this  ex- 
pression is  taken.  The  most  favorable  judgment  for  Pilate  is 
that  of  Olshausen,  who  finds  in  these  words  "the  melancholy 
expression  of  heartfelt  wretchedness,"  the  plaint  of  a  seeker 
after  truth,  who  had  searched  all  systems  in  vain ;  Winer,  also, 
(Realworterbuch,)  defends  Pilate.  It  would  be  a  complaint, 
then,  like  that  expressed  with  resentful  sadness  by  the  elder 
Pliny,  that  truth  is  so  dark,  ut  solum  certum  sit,  nihil  esse 
certi  nee  miserius  quidquam  homine  nee  superbius,  "that  noth- 
ing is  certain,  but  this,  that  all  is  uncertain,  and  that  man  is  at 
once  the  most  miserable  and  the  most  proud  of  all  beings."  To 
this  view  is  at  once  opposed  in  some  measure,  the  analogy,  for 
such  earnest  searchers  after  truth  were  certainly  rare  among 
the  high  officers  of  the  Roman  government,  (cf  the  words  of 
Felix  with  which  he  breaks  off  the  conversation  with  Paul, 
Acts  xxiv.  25.)  Again,  if  this  man  felt  any  concern  about  the 
truth,  why  does  he  at  once  turn  his  back,  and  with  the  excla- 
mation he  has  made,  take  his  departure  ?  "Why  does  he  not 
ash  ?  It  may  be  said,  it  was  no  part  of  his  duty  as  the  exam- 
ining magistrate,  to  engage  in  the  investigation  of  questions 
of  doctrine,  (Schweizer,)  but  what  prevented  his  doing  so  in 
this  private  audience  ?  might  he  not.  in  fact,  in  his  very  charac- 
ter of  examining  magistrate,  have  gone  further  than  he  did  ? 
Besides,  would  so  earnest  a  friend  of  religious  truth  have  had 
such  lax  moral  principles  as  Pilate  had  ?  Would  a  truly  earnest 
Roman,  out  of  mere  dread  of  men,  have  sacrificed  an  accused 
person,  of  whose  innocence  he  was  convinced  ?  And  finally, 
when  in  xix.  9  he  puts  to  the  Redeemer  the  question  concern- 
ing his  origin,  would  Christ  have  met  it  with  silence  had  he 
presumed  that  the  interrogator  felt  an  earnest  want  ?  We  con- 
cur, therefore,  in  judgment  with  Neander :  (cf.  Calvin,  Meyer, 
Liicke,)  "He  was  the  representative  of  the  tone  of  thought 
common  to  a  large  part  of  the  cultivated  men,  especially  men 
of  rank  in  the  Roman  world  of  that  da}^  who  were  too  com- 
pletely under  the  bondage  of  a  worldly  mind  to  allow  a  germi- 


First  hearing  before  Pilate.  389 

nation  of  any  feeling  of  need  which  transcended  the  limits  of 
the  earthly."'  With  this,  the  scorn  he  exhibits  toward  the 
Jews,  and  toward  Jesus  himself,  in  the  question,  v.  37,  and  in 
xix.  5,  is  in  consonance,  cf.  what  is  said  above  on  v.  31.  Nor 
is  there  any  thing  incompatible  with  such  a  character,  in  the 
impression  made  upon  him  by  the  declarations  of  Jesus,  chap. 
xix.  7,  8,  12,  as  little  as  in  the  good  nature  which  impels  him 
to  wish  to  liberate  the  enthusiast — the  sequel  shows  how  pliant 
is  this  kind  of  good  nature  when  unattended  by  principle.  As 
regards  the  testimonies  about  this  man  from  other  historical 
sources,  Philo  (leg.  ad  Caj.)  calls  him:  zrjv  (puaiu  dxa/uTrYj^  x. 
fjtsTu.  a'jSddoo^  diu£c?.:xzo^,  "a  nature  inflexible  and  implacable 
in  its  arrogance ;"  Josephus  and  Philo  mention  a  number  of 
things  done  by  him  willfully  and  out  of  hatred  to  the  Jewish 
people,  by  which  insurrections  were  excited.  It  was  for  this 
reason  he  was  deposed,  and  as  Eusebius,  Hist,  eccles.  ii.  7, 
referring  to  Greek  historians,  mentions,  died  by  his  own  hand. 
— As  he  supposed  that  he  saw  traces  of  the  enthusiast  in  the 
Saviour's  reply,  he  expresses  his  judgment  that  he  is  innocent. 
Y.  39,  40.  Pilate  gathers  from  the  further  accusations  of  the 
members  of  the  Sanhedrim,  that  Jesus  belongs  to  the  juris- 
diction of  Herod,  and  seeks  to  throw  off  the  burden  from  his 
own  conscience.  In  vain — it  is  thrust  back  upon  Mm,  for 
Herod  returns  to  him  the  accused  person.  In  vain  does  he 
resort  to  a  custom,  of  whose  origin  we  are  ignorant,  of  releas- 
ing a  prisoner  at  the  Passover ;  the  Holy  One  of  God  and  a 
robber,  are  presented  to  the  people,  that  they  may  choose 
between  them — persuaded  by  the  fanatical  priests,  they  choose 
the  robber. 

^  Cf.  Neander's  Kirchengesch,  Bd.  i.  p.  15,  (Torrey's  tran.  vol.  i.  p.  8.)  In  the 
same  vein,  the  heathen  CiBcilius  said  to  the  Christians :  (in  Minutius,  Octavius,  c. 
xii.  ^  7,  c.  xiii.  §  1,  11,  12,)  "Would  you  be  wise,  or  even  modest,  cease  to  rack 
your  brains  about  the  zones  of  heaven,  and  the  secrets  and  destinies  of  the  world. 
If  they  look  before  their  feet,  that  is  enough  for  such  illiterate,  unrefined,  rude  and 
rustic  people,  who  have  not  even  sound  sense  in  common  things,  to  say  nothing  of 
epiritual  ones." 


34* 


CHAPTER   XIX. 


Scourging  of  Jesus. — v.  1-6. 

Y.  1-3.  John  introduces  this  scourging  without  stating  the 
motives  that  led  to  it;  we  first  learn  from  verses  5-7,  that  the 
design  was,  by  this  severe  maltreatment,  to  satisfy  in  some 
degree  the  thirst  on  the  part  of  the  people  for  blood,  and  thus 
to  release  Jesus ;  Luke  xxiii.  16,  points  to  the  same  reason.  On 
the  other  hand,  however,  it  would  seem,  according  to  Matthew 
xxvii.  26,  Mark  xv.  15,  as  though  the  scourging,  as  in  many 
other  cases,  had  merely  been  preparatory  to  the  crucifixion, 
(Heyne,  Opusc.  Acad.  vol.  iii.:  Cur  virgis  csesi  Romano  more, 
qui  mox  securi  percutienda  essent,  "  why  it  was  the  Roman 
custom  to  scourge  persons  previously  to  beheading  them.") 
The  apparent  contradiction  is  relieved  by  the  fact  that  this 
scourging,  which  was  executed  as  the  milder  punishment,  (Hug, 
Freib.  Zeitschr.  v.  p.  4,  thinks,  as  an  inquisitorial  torture,)  as 
it  failed  of  the  object  for  which  it  was  designed,  took  the  place 
of  the  scourging  which  preceded  crucifixion.  As  the  procura- 
tor had  no  lictors,  which  were  assigned  only  to  the  prseses  of 
Syria,  the  punishment  is  here  inflicted  by  soldiers  ;  it  might  be 
supposed  that  they  would  execute  it  not  without  severity,  death, 
indeed,  was  sometimes  the  result,  (Cicero,  Act.  10,  in  Verr.  c. 
54.)  They  unite  mockery  with  it,  as  the  men  of  war  of  Anti- 
pas  had  done ;  the  mantle  (Luke  xxiii.  11,)  was  still  at  hand, 
and  they  mimic  the  ceremonial  of  homage  paid  to  Oriental 
kings.^     And  the  image  which  the  brutal  insolence  of  soldiers, 

1  A  similar  instance  is  related  by  Vopiscus,  of  Proculus,  §  2 :  quura  in  convivio 
quodam  ad  latrunculos  luderetur,  atque  ipse  decies  imperator  exisset,  quidam  non 
ignobilis  scurra  Ave,  inquit,  Auguste!  allataque  lana  purpurea  humero  eius  ingessit 
eumque  adoravit,  "  when  he  was  playing  chess  at  a  party,  and  had  come  out  imperator 
ten  times,  a  certain,  not  ignoble,  member  of  the  guard,  said  to  him,  Hail  Augustus, 
and  the  purple  cloth  being  brought,  placed  it  on  his  shoulder  and  did  him  reverence." 
(390) 


Scourging  of  Jesus.  391 

as  if  by  the  sport  of  accident,  here  creates,  has  become  the 
most  touching  reprcsciitatioa  of  divine  majesty  in  the  form  of 
a  servant,  and  consequent!}',  also,  the  sublimcst  subject  of 
Christian  art !  How  great  would  have  been  the  loss  to  our 
race  had  they  been  deprived  of  this  image  of  majesty  in  its  vol- 
untar}'  humiliation  !  ITow  calml}-,  yet  mightily  lias  it  preached 
through  all  time,  in  palace,  cottage  and  cell !  A  Christ  stoned 
— how  different  the  impression  ! 

V.  4,  5.  According  to  Iliig,  Pilate  by  producing  Christ  to 
the  people  after  his  shameful  scourging,  wished  to  create  in 
their  minds  the  impression,  that  he  had  undergone  the  qusestio 
per  tormenta,  "the  trial  by  torture,"  without  any  evidence  of 
guilt  being  brought  to  light.  But  there  is  no  intimation  of  this 
in  the  words,  and  Luke  xxiii.  16  is  opposed  to  the  supposition 
of  a  qufestio  per  tormenta.  The  design  of  the  governor  in 
producing  him  is  certainly  not  to  be  gathered  from  tlie  text, 
the  antithesis  to  it  is  the  leading  away  to  the  place  of  execution. 
''Ids  6  dv&p.  Luther  translates :  "  sec  what  a  man,"  and  Augus- 
tine says:  si  regi  invidetis,  iam  parcite,  quia  deiectum  videtis; 
flagellatus  est,  spinis  coronatus  est,  amaris  conviciis  illusus  est; 
fervet  ignominia,  frigescat  invidia,  "  if  you  hate  the  king,  yet 
spare  him  now  that  you  see  him  cast  down ;  he  has  been 
scourged,  crowned  with  thorns,  taunted  with  bitter  reproaches; 
the  ignominy  burns,  let  the  hate  grow  cold."  This  is  the 
ordinary  view,  and  according  to  Olshausen,  the  language 
"expresses  the  deepest  sympathy." — According  to  Grotius  and 
Neander,  on  the  contrary,  the  meaning  is :  "  can  you  believe 
that  such  a  man  as  that  would  set  himself  up  for  a  king?" 
"We  regard  this  latter  interpretation  as  inadmissible,  for  even 
the  most  insolent  rebel  must  have  submitted  to  the  scourging 
and  derision.  On  the  other  hand  it  is  certainly  possible  that 
Pilate  designed  to  excite  sympathy  by.  the  exclamation,  and  the 
language  is  not  opposed  to  this,  for  ids  can  also  refer  to  the 
character  of  the  person  brought  forth,  as  in  v.  14.  The  excla.- 
mation  may,  however,  simply  intimate  his  presence:  "There 
he  is  once  more." 

V.  6,  7.  As  the  superiors  and  their  people  again  urge  that 
Christ  be  put  to  death,  a  sarcastic  reply,  like  that  of  xviii.  31, 
is  made  by  the  governor.     They  now  catch  at  the  religious 


892  Chap.  XIX.  — v.  8-16. 

ground  of  complaint,  and  demand  the  infliction  of  the  punish- 
ment allotted  to  false  prophets,  (Deut.  xiii.  1-5,  Lev.  xxiv.  16.) 

Second  hearing  before  Pilate  —  Sentence  is  pronounced. 

V.  8-16. 

V.  8,  9.  Amid  all  the  indifference  of  a  man  of  the  world, 
the  presentiment  of  a  supernatural  world  is  not  wholly  sup- 
pressed ;  the  appearance  of  Christ  had  already  made  an  extra- 
ordinary impression  on  him,  and  when  they  now  designate  this 
Jesus  as  a  Son  of  God,  Pilate  recalls  to  memory  the  myths  of 
appearances  of  the  Deities  on  earth.  The  new  hearing  has  not 
reference  to  the  place  of  Christ's  earthly  birth,  he  already  knew 
that  Jesus  was  a  Galilean,  the  question  7:6&ev,  embraces,  also, 
as  in  ix.  29,  (cf  ipzeod-sv,  xviii.  36,)  the  nature  of  his  origin. 
Arrian,  Dissert.  Ej)ictet.  1.  3,  c.  1:  "Epictetus  has  not  told  me 
this  —  for  whence  (Tzodeu)  was  he  —  but  a  god  has  told  me." 
As  Jesus  is  silent,  we  must  conclude  that  he  had  no  confidence 
in  the  susceptibility  of  the  man  for  the  answer. 

V.  10-12.  In  the  answer  of  Christ,  igooaca  is  regarded  by 
Calvin  and  Piscator  as  a  designation  of  official  authority: 
(Romans  xiii.  1-4,)  "  Thy  power  is  derived  from  the  ordinance 
of  God,  therefore,  the  Jews,  who  have  wished  to  subserve  their 
own  arbitraiy  will  by  means  of  the  magistracy  which  God  has 
instituted,  incur  the  greater  guilt."  But  this  causal  connection 
of  dca  TooTo,  is  a  very  hidden  one.  Since  Chrysostom,  a 
majority,  by  egooaia  understand  the  authority  de  facto  to  pass 
sentence  on  Jesus,  which  view  is  favored  by  the  neuter  osdojuLsnov. 
The  oca  TouTo  is  then  difficult,  Heumann  explaining  it  as  mean- 
ing "nevertheless,"  Lampe:  "therefore,  since  the  Jews  have 
no  such  power,"  Grotius :  "  since  God  so  specially  cares  for  me, 
as  the  Jews  might  know -from  the  prophecies."  l!^eauder  and 
De  Wette  present  the  best  view:  "because  thou  almost  with- 
out a  will  of  thine  own,  and  constrained  by  the  intrigues  of 
the  Sanhedrim,  condemnest  me."  There  lies  then  in  these 
words  something  calculated  to  humble  tlie  arrogance  of  Pilate, 
(Chrysostom  :  xazaaTtoju  abzou  rb  ippbvqua  x.  zbu  zucpou,  "  depress 
ing  his  pride  and  arrogance,")  but  there  is  in  them,  also,  an 
extreme  mildness  in  the  distinction  they  draw  between  the  sin 


Second  hearing  before  Pilate.  393 

of  infirmity  and  the  more  willful  blindness.  Who  will  believe 
that  such  an  answer  as  this  is  drawn  from  the  fancy  of  the 
Evangelist,  not  from  Christ  himself?  '  1  Tzapadichu;;,  collectively 
of  the  Jews,  (Bengel :  Caiaphas.) — Pilate  appears  to  have  felt 
in  some  measure  the  exalted  character  of  the  reply,  the  accused 
seems  as  it  were  to  sit  in  judgment  on  his  judge,  there  is  con- 
sequently no  rising  of  irritability  on  the  part  of  the  governor, 
but  an  increase  of  the  feeling  of  kindness.  But  the  crafty  party 
of  the  priests  knew  how  to  approach  the  man  on  his  weakest 
side.  He  that  does  not  fear  God  suprcraelj',  is  condemned  to 
tremble  before  men.  Amicus  Csesaris,  "friend  of  Cfesar,"  was 
the  honorary  title  of  legates  and  prefects,  and  Tacitus  (Annal. 
iii.  38,)  says  of  the  suspicious  Tiberius :  majestatis  crimen 
omnium  accusationum  complementum  erat,  "the  charge  of 
offense  against  his  majesty  was  the  burden  of  every  prosecu- 
tion." 'Jvrr/ij'£.'v,  also  of  factious  opposition.  That  very  danger 
which  Pilate  now  escapes  by  abandoning  the  innocent,  he  actu- 
ally fell  into  a  few  years  later. 

V.  13-16.  The  sentence  was  pronounced  sub  divo,  "in  the 
open  air,"  not  de  piano,  or  ex  ?equo  loco,  "a  place  on  a  level 
with  the  audience,"  but  ex  superiori,  "from  an  elevation." 
There  stood  the  judgment  seat  upon  a  Mosaic  pavement,  pavi- 
mentum  tessellatum,  (Suetonius,  C^sar,  c.  46.)  If  in  the  word 
ra^i3a&a  the  reading  with  one  /?  be  correct,  the  most  probable 
derivation  is  from  Nn3J,  the  hack^  because  of  its  arched  form, 
(see  Tholuck's  Beitr.  zur  Spracherkl.  des  N.  T.  p.  119-123.)  On 
TcapaaxtOTj  r.  r^aa-^a^  see  above,  on  xiii.  1.  According  to  Mark, 
XV.  25,  Jesus  was  crucified  about  the  third  hour,  (nine  o'clock,) 
with  which  could  not  be  reconciled  the  pronouncing  of  the 
sentence  at  the  sixth  hour,  that  is,  about  noon.  The  harmony 
is  most  easily  established  by  the  supposition  which  already 
commends  itself  at  i.  40,  that  John  follows  the  Roman  compu- 
tation of  time,  and  that,  consequentlj^  the  sixth  hour  of  the 
morning  is  here  meant.  De  Wette  is  wrong  in  maintaining 
that  this  is  "palpably  too  early."  As  the  members  of  the 
Sanhedrim  urged  the  accusation,  r.piol^  that  is,  between  three 
and  six  o'clock,  (it  is  clear  from  Mark  i.  35,  John  xx.  1,  that 
-<mi  means  before  sunrise,)  it  is  entirely  credible  that  the  sen- 


394  Chap.  XIX.  — v.  17-27. 

tence  followed  at  sunrise.'  la  order  also  to  avoid  too  great  a 
sensation  among  the  people,  they  must  have  sought  to  have  the 
sentence  pronounced  as  early  as  possible.  Even  now  the  earnest- 
ness of  Pilate  does  not  go  far  enough  to  suppress  his  sarcasms. 

The  CRUcmxioN  and  Death  of  our  Lord.  —  v.  17-30. 

V.  17,  18.  The  crucifixion,  according  to  the  Roman  law, 
was  executed  outside  of  the  city,  (so  Plautus  and  Cicero, 
quoted  by  Hug,  Freib.  Zeitschr.  v.  p.  11 ;)  the  Jewish  usage  as 
to  the  place  of  execution,  was  the  same.  The  custom  of  com- 
pelling the  persons  sentenced  to  bear  their  own  cross,  is  also 
mentioned  by  Plutarch,  De  sera  numinis  vind.  c.  9.  Fohfo&d, 
by  euphon}',  for  the  Chaldee,  ^^\t^\^  "the  skuU."^  The  usual 
explanation  is,  "place  where  the  skulls  of  criminals  were 
lying,"  the  genitive,  xpaptou,  forms  then  the  com]).,  (Fritszche, 
on  Mark  xv.  22,)  though  in  that  ease  we  would  expect  the 
genitive  plural,  and  in  the  Aramaic,  ^^tl\  ^'5-.  Bengel,  there 
fore,  (ad  Matth.)  understood  it  of  the  skull-shape,  and  Thenius, 
in  Illgens,  Zeitschr.  f.  Kircheng,  1842,  3  H.  shows  that  a  hill 
of  that  shape  lay  to  the  north  of  the  city.  Lipsius,  de  Cruce, 
first  published  Antwerp,  1595,  is  still  the  most  instructive 
work  in  regard  to  the  cross  and  the  sufferings  connected  with 
it.  The  condemned  persons  were  stripped,  with  the  exception 
of  an  apron  about  the  body,  were  drawn  up  with  cords  upon 
the  cross,  which  was  about  a  man's  height,  and  the  hands  and 
feet  first  tied  and  afterward  nailed  to  it.  The  nailing  of  the 
feet  was  contested  by  Dr.  Paul  us  in  so  plausible  a  manner,  that 
a  majority  abandoned  the  idea,  but  we  may  regard  it  as  com- 
pletely established  by  Hug,  1.  c.  and  Bahr,  (see  the  literature 
in  Hase,  Leben  Jesu,  §  120,  and  Liicke,  on  xx.  25.) 

V.  19-22.     An   inscription,  titulus,   over  the  head  of  the 
criminal,  pointed  out  his  ofifense,  and  "the  first  public  recogni- 

1  No  Roman  sentence  before  sunrise  was  valid.  Gellius,  Noctes  Att.  xiv.  7 :  Senatus 
consulta  ante  exortum  solem  aut  post  solis  occasum  facta,  rata  non  esse,  "the  de 
crees  of  the  senate  passed  before  sunrise,  or  after  sunset,  were  not  valid." 

'  We  would  expect  the  form  xrj7J7J,  but  Buxtorf,  Lex.  Talmud,  was  acquainted 
with  no  other  than  NpSjSj  ;  the  Tarsum  2  Kings  ix.  35,  also  has  Xj^ SjSu. 


The  Crucifixion  axb  Death  of  our  Lord.  395 

lion  of  Jesus  was  made  through  the  ironical  lapidary  style  of 
the  procurator  in  the  three  languages  of  the  world,"  the 
Hebrew  (or  strictly  speaking,  the  Chaldee,)  for  the  natives  of 
Palestine,  the  Greek  for  the  many  foreigners,  the  Latin  as  the 
language  of  the  commanding  authority.  The  imperative  present 
Ypdifs,  which  stands  at  other  times  with  the  negative,  when 
something  commenced  is  to  be  interrupted,  is  here  to  be 
explained  by  the  fact,  that  the  action  is  still  regarded  as  capable 
of  being  revoked.  To  this  in  the  mouth  of  Pilate,  is  opposed 
the  perfect. 

V.  23,  24.  The  only  earthly  property  which  the  Saviour  left 
fell  not  to  his  Disciples,  but  in  conformity  with  the  Roman  law, 
to  the  executioners.  Li  the  Ifidria  are  included  the  upper  gar- 
ment, the  girdle,  the  linen  shirt,  &c.,  the  under  garment  was 
woven  in  one  piece,  like  the  garment  of  the  high-priest, 
(Joseph.  Antiq.  iii.  7,  4 ;)  according  to  a  statement  in  Isidor. 
Pelus.  Epp.  i.  74,  it  was  especially  the  poorer  classes  in  Gali- 
lee who  wore  this  kind  of  garment.  The  clothes  were  divided 
into  four  parts,  as  the  Roman  detachment  usually  consisted 
not  of  three,  but  of  four  men,  (Acts  xii.  4;)  lots  were  cast 
on  the  uuder-garment,  that  it  might  not  be  injured  by  tear- 
ing. This  incident  recalls  to  memory  the  depicture  of  suffering 
in  the  twenty-second  Psalm.  It  is  indeed  of  his  own  sorrows 
David  speaks  in  that  Psalm,  but  the  hopes  to  whicli  he  soars 
from  the  24th  verse,  are  so  extraordinary,  and  historically  con- 
sidered so  inexplicable,  (when  he  speaks  of  his  deliverance  as  a 
banquet  of  which  rich  and  poor  shall  partake,  as  a  consequence 
of  which  all  the  kindreds  of  the  nations  shall  turn  unto  the 
Lord,)  that  we  cannot  but  recognize  in  him  a  condition  of 
prophetic  ecstasy.  The  same  prophetic  spirit  caused  him  in 
separate  particulars  to  use  expressions  which  were  literally 
fulfilled  in  the  sufferings  of  our  Lord.  In  the  passage  which 
he  has  cited  exactly  from  the  Septuagint,  the  Evangelist  by 
IfiaTcafio^  understands  the  under  garment. 

V.  25-27.  The  women  from  Galilee,  who  followed  Jesus  to 
Jerusalem,  (Matt,  xxvii.  55,)  gather  here,  also,  at  the  place  of 
anguish.  According  to  the  common  view,  Kho-fJ.:;  is  equivalent 
to  \4?.(fa7o:,  "sSn,  of.  however,  the  work  of  Schaf,  quoted  on  vii. 


396  Chap.  XIX.  — v.  28,  29. 

2-5.  ouWieseler's  hypothesis,'  see  Ebrard  in  loc.  Of  the  seven 
words  on  the  cross  we  find  one  in  Matthew,  three  in  Luke, 
three  in  John.  That  touching  scene,  which  shows  that  in  the 
midst  of  his  last  agony  the  Redeemer  forgot  not  his  personal, 
earthly  ties  and  duties,  is  recorded  by  that  Disciple  only  whom 
it  immediately  concerned.  So  slight  was  the  elevation  of  the 
cross,  that  the  mother  had  it  in  her  power  for  six  fearful  hours 
of  anguish,  to  read  in  the  countenance  of  her  Divine  son  his 
agony  and  his  triumph  ;  the  less  right  she  had,  in  moments  like 
these,  to  expect  from  his  lips  a  word  in  regard  to  his  personal 
relations,  the  more  affecting  must  have  been  his  address  to  her. 
That  Joseph,  her  husband,  was  not  living,  may  be  gathered  with 
certainty  from  these  words  of  the  Redeemer ;  but  it  has  been 
thought  strange  that  the  sorrowing  mother  was  not  committed 
to  the  dds?.(po7^,  whether  we  regard  them  as  brothers  or  as 
cousins  of  Christ.  But  these  ddel^ol  were  at  that  time  still 
unbelieving;  the  external  circumstances  of  John  may  have 
rendered  him  the  very  one  to  whom  this  duty  was  easy,  and 
finally — what  if  he  preeminently  possessed  a  filial  disposition  ? — 
If  we  suppose  now  that  d^  zd  Idea  refers  to  the  house  of  John's 
father  in  Galilee,  we  must  infer  that  the  words  d::  i/Mvy^^  rrj^ 
&pa:;,  are  to  be  taken  very  vaguely,  for  the  Apostles  remained 
in  a  body  at  the  capital  through  the  entire  week  of  the  festival, 
(xx.  26.)  Does  the  acquaintance  of  John  with  the  high-priest 
warrant,  perhaps,  the  supposition  that  he  had  a  house  in  Jeru- 
salem also?  It  is  certain,  nevertheless,  that  ere  Ta  idea  need 
not  always  be  understood  of  a  man's  own  property,  and  tfee 
meaning  may  be :  "  he  received  her,  and  at  a  later  period  kept 
her  with  him,  where  he  resided." 

V.  28,  29.  The  common  interpretation  connects  the  telic 
proposition,  I'va  xvL  with  ?JYe:,  (Jesus  said,  "I  thirst" — in  order 
that,  &c.)  cf.  xiv.  31.  The  telic  proposition  expresses  then  the 
subjective  judgment  of  the  Evangelist,  who  designs  to  direct 
attention  to  the  fulfillment  of  Psalm  xxii.  16 :  (15,)  "  My 
tongue  cleaveth  to  my  palate."^    Not  until  he  had  drunk  to  its 

1  His  theory  is,  tbat  Salome  was  the  sister  of  Jesus'  mother,  and  John  a  cousin  of 
Jesus,  and  consequently  already  bound  by  ties  of  blood  to  care  for  Mary,  Stud.  u. 
Kritik.  1840,  p.  669,  seq. 

2  According  to  the  current  view,  there  is  a  reference  to  Psalm  Ixix.  22  ;  elg  rijv 


The  Crucifixion  and  Death  of  our  Lord.  397 

dregs  the  cup  of  suffering,  does  the  dying  Saviour  allow  him- 
self any  thing  to  refresh  him,  and  thereby  fulfills  a  touch  of  the 
picture  of  suffering  in  Ps.  xxii.  The  only  objection  to  this 
view  is,  that  the  scriptural  allusion  is  vaguely  expressed,  when 
we  might  naturall}^  look  for  reference  to  a  particular  passage, 
see  vss.  24,  3G,  37,  ii.  17,  xii.  37,  seq.  We  cannot  appeal  to  xvii. 
12  for  counter  evidence,  since  there  no  single  passage  of 
Scripture  is  had  in  view.  Semler  has,  consequently,  given  this 
interpretation :  Postea  cum  sciret  Jesus,  iam  omnia  ista  in  ipso 
complcta  esse,  quibus  opus  esset,  ut  Scripture  oracula  eventu 
non  carerent,  dixit :  sitio,  "  when  Jesus  knew  that  all  things 
needful  to  the  fulfillment  of  the  prophecies  of  Scripture  were 
completed  in  him,  he  said  :  *I  thirst.'  "  The  final  proposition 
on  this  view,  serves  to  define  more  clearly  the  preceding  one, 
as  in  chap.  xi.  4.  In  the  same  way  Van  Ilengel  (Annotatio  in 
N".  T.  Amst.  1824,)  construes  it,  and  in  accordance  with  this 
sense  brings  in  v.  30  :  "  Conscious  that  all  was  fulfilled,  he 
speaks  of  his  thirst,  and  after  he  had  drunk  and  obtained 
strength,  he  cries  aloud."  This  sense  is  neither  indicated,  nor 
does  it  seem  very  appropriate ;  yet  it  is  a  question  whether  the 
preference  should  not  be  given  to  this  construction.  As  soon 
as  the  criminal  arrived  at  the  place  of  execution,  we  are  told  in 
the  Talmud,  it  was  the  custom  to  offer  him  a  cup  of  drugged 
wine,  which  served  to  stupefy  him.  This  had  been  refused 
by  Christ  after  he  had  tasted  it,  for  he  wished  to  suffer  and  die 
in  tlie  full  possession  of  his  consciousness.  At  a  later  period 
there  is  mention  made,  Luke  xxiii.  36,  of  vinegar  being  offered 
in  mockery,  but  this  seems  to  be  different  from  the  fact  here 
under  consideration.  More  probably  the  fact  here  mentioned 
by  John  coincides  with  Matt,  xxvii.  48,  Mark  xv.  36 ;  if  the 
drink  was  brought,  on  our  Saviour's  exclaiming:  Eli,  Eli, 
&c.,  in  Matthew,  it  is  not  easy  to  see  how  that  should  giv^e 
occasion  for  bringing  it,  and  perhaps  the  words,  "I  thirst," 
followed  soon  after  the  exclamation  mentioned  by  ^latthew. 
The  Oriental  hyssop,  which  grows  to  the  length  of  a  yard,  could 
be  conveniently  used  to  support  a  sponge.     As  one  whose 

fil-^iav  fiov  liToTinuv  fie  o^or,  "in  my  thirst  tliey  gave  me  vinegar  to  drink."  The 
St\bQ,  however,  floes  not  here  present  itself  as  the  leading  idea,  and  the  giving  of 
the  vinegjir  to  Christ  was  a  kindness;  in  the  Psalm,  on  the  contrary,  it  is  an  imago 
of  grief,  neither  should  Matt,  xxvii.  34  be  referred  to  Psalm  Ixix. 

85 


898  Chap.  XIX.  — v.  31-35. 

dying  was  not  passive,  but  active,  not  a  thing  endured,  but  an 
act,  (John  x.  18,)  the  Redeemer,  with  a  clear  consciousness  of 
the  moment  at  which  his  life  ends,  encounters  death,  and  testi- 
fies that  his  work  on  earth  has  been  performed. 

The  taking  down  from  the  Cross  and  the  Burial. — v.  31-42. 

V.  31-35.  According  to  the  Jewish  law,  the  person  hanged 
was  to  be  taken  down  the  same  day,  (Deuteronomy  xxi.  23,) 
especially  on  feast-daj^s,  and  this  feast-day  was  specially  holy ; 
on  the  words,  "for  that  Sabbath  day,  &c."  see  above,  on  xiii.  1. 
On  this  point  the  Romans  were  compliant.  Ilapaaxvjij,  means 
the  day  of  preparation,  not  for  the  feast,  but  for  the  Sabbath, 
(v.  42.)  The  breaking  of  the  legs  has  been  regarded  by  many 
as  a  means  of  putting  to  death.  But  that  it  was  not  designed 
in  and  of  itself  to  produce  death,  ISTeander  (p.  709,  tran.  p. 
426,)  shows  by  a  reference  to  Polyb.  Hist.  i.  c.  80,  §  13,  and 
to  Ammian  Marcellin.  Hist.  xiv.  9,  where  it  is  expressly  said : 
fractis  cruribus,  occiduntur,  "  after  their  legs  have  been  broken, 
they  are  killed.''  The  breaking  of  the  legs  was  not  always 
connected  with  the  crucifixion,  (the  Jews,  consequently,  had 
first  to  get  Pilate's  permission,)  but  was  a  special  aggravation 
of  the  punishment,  (Hug,  1.  c.  p.  64.)  As  those  who  had  been 
suspended  but  a  few  hours  on  the  cross  might  be  restored,  this 
barbarous  act  was  performed  to  prevent  such  a  restoration ; 
they  were  probably  left  to  languish  away  in  this  miserable 
condition.  Approaching  on  both  sides,  the  soldiers  performed 
their  work  on  the  two  who  were  crucified  with  him ;  in  the 
case  of  Jesus  himself,  the  act  appeared  superfluous,  as  they 
discovered  in  him  the  signs  of  death ;  in  order,  however,  to 
make  yet  more  sure  of  his  death,  one  of  them  thrust  his  lance 
into  the  side  of  our  Lord,  cf.  an  instance  of  such  a  finishing 
blow  with  a  lance,  in  the  Martyrology  of  the  Acta  Sanctorum, 
quoted  by  Neander,  (p.  709,  tran.  p.  426.)  That  in  the  case 
of  Christ,  this  thrust  must  have  produced  death,  had  not  death 
previously  taken  place,  is  clear  from  the  magnitude  of  the 
wound,  for  Thomas  was  told  to  put,  not  his  finger,  but  his  hand 
into  the  side,  (xx.  27,)  the  body  must,  consequently,  have  been 
pierced  not  only  by  the  point  of  the  lance,  but  by  the  broad 


The  taking  down  from  the  Cross  and  the  Burial.     399 

part  of  it  also. — The  fact  of  the  gushing  forth  of  blood  and 
water,  already  creates  in  itself  an  anatomical  difficulty,  and  yet 
greater  is  the  difficulty  connected  with  the  answer  to  the  ques- 
tion, for  what  object  the  Evangelist  adduces  it,  especially  when 
we  consider  the  earnest  asseveration,  v.  35.  Neander  (p.  712, 
tran.  427,)  limits  himself  to  a  brief  remark,  Liicke  leaves  the 
whole  matter  undetermined,  and  without  reply  passes  by  the 
objections  urged  by  Strauss.  We  will  commence  with  the  expla- 
nation of  V.  85.  First  of  all,  as  to  the  construction,  we  may,  as 
in  XX.  21,  consider  the  cva  xzL  as  dependent  on  fiz{xa(tz'Ji)r^xz^ 
and  regard  what  lies  between  them  as  parenthetical.  It  is 
preferable,  however,  to  insert  something  before  }W,  "  and  writes 
this,"  as  in  i.  8,  (De  Wette.)  As  to  the  apprehension  of  this 
testimony  as  a  whole,  Weisse,  (ii.  326,  seq.)  Liitzelberger,  (p. 
192,)  Schweizer,  (p.  60,)  consider  it  as  in  the  highest  degree 
singular  and  equivocal ;  the  preterite  [x-impvjpTjXz,  and  the 
Ixtr^o;^  clearly  argue,  in  their  judgment,  that  the  author  of 
this  testimony  either  distinguishes  himself  from  the  Evangelist, 
or  betrays  himself  as  distinct  from  him.  It  is  said  in  reply, 
that  the  perfect  nz{iafj-:i)C)rf/.t^  niay,  as  in  chap.  i.  34,  mean : 
"wishes  to  have  it  testified."  We  may,  besides,  oppose  to  it 
the  present  olotv,  the  force  of  which  Schweizer  sees  no  other 
way  of  obviating  than  by  the  remark,  that  the  later  writer, 
although  John  was  in  heaven,  conceived  of  himself  as  joining  in 
with  him.  These  words  have,  nndoubtedly,  a  certain  circum- 
stiintiality,  but  why  should  not  the  Evangelist  have  appealed 
first  to  his  authority  as  a  witness  of  the  truth,  and  after  that  to 
his  inmost  consciousness  of  the  truth? — What  then  is  it  which 
he  so  solemnly  testifies,  and  by  which  he  designs  to  give  strength 
to  the  Christian  faith  of  the  reader  ?  If  it  be  simply  the  flowing 
of  blood  and  water  from  the  wound,  what  is  the  element  of 
faith?  The  most  obvious  supposition  is,  that  in  opposition  to 
the  assertion  of  a  death  in  appearance  merely,  he  certifies  the 
reality  of  the  death  of  Jesus,  (Beza,  Semler,  Rosenmuller, 
Kuinol,  Xeander.)  But  at  the  very  outstart  is  opposed  to  this 
the  fact,  that  no  doubt  of  the  reality  of  the  death  of  Jesus  ever 
rose  in  the  early  Church,  which,  according  to  Weisse,  is  the 
strongest  of  the  evidences  against  the  supposition  of  an  appa- 
rent death.     Besides,  does  the  flowing  out  of  blood  and  water 


400  Chap.  XIX.  — v.  31-35 

confirm  the  death  whicli  liad  ensued  ?  Already  in  Calvin  we 
have  an  allusion  to  the  fact,  that  "  coagulating  blood  resolves 
itself  partly  into  water."  But  it  has  been  urged  by  Strauss, 
that  only  without  the  body  is  the  blood  decomposed  into  clots 
and  water.  But  how,  if  the  author  of  the  Gospel,  together 
with  these  soldiers,  was  mistaken  as  to  having  seen  such  a 
decompounding  in  what  flowed  from  the  wound  ?  or  if  he,  as 
Strauss  will  have  it,  taking  that  error  as  the  basis,  has  invented 
the  whole  statement  "  in  order  to  get  a  certain  proof  of  the 
death  of  Jesus  ?"  But  when  the  Evangelist  writes :  "  forthwith 
came  there  out  blood  and  water,"  it  does  not  look  as  though  he 
meant  coagulated  clots  of  blood,  he  seems  rather  to  speak  of 
running  blood,  and  if  this  be  the  meaning,  it  cannot  be  the 
Evangelist's  object  to  prove  tbat  Jesus  was  actually  dead. 
Could  he,  perhaps,  have  assumed  that  death  was  produced  by 
the  thrust,  and  have  mentioned  the  water  and  blood  as  a  proof 
against  the  Docette  of  the  reality  of  Christ's  body  ?  (Hammond, 
Paulus,  Olshausen.)  But  why,  then,  is  water  brought  into  the 
question  ?  Is  not  the  matter  thereby  pushed  to  the  miracu- 
lous ?  Indeed,  the  ancient  Church  downward  even  to 
Calovius  and  Bengel,  considered  the  fact  a  mysterious  one. 
Ambrose  (in  Luc.  c.  23,)  says  :  In  corporibus  nostris  sanguis 
post  mortem  congelascit,  sed  hoc  loco  adhuc  fluidus  est,  "in 
our  bodies  the  blood  congeals  completely  after  death,  but  here 
it  is  still  fluid,"  in  the  same  way,  Origen,  Contra  Celsum,  ii. 
36,  and  Euthymius  :  kx  vexpou  ya.p  d-vd^pumou^  xdu  /uopcdxK;  vo^rj 
rrc,  o'jx  i^ehuaevac  aJpa,  "from  the  body  of  a  dead  man,  though 
it  should  be  pierced  ten  thousand  times,  blood  would  not 
issue."  "With  1  John  v.  6  to  appeal  to,  they  found  therein 
symbolically  typified  the  two  fountains  of  salvation  flowing 
from  Christ  for  the  Church,  the  baptismal  water  and  the  euchar- 
istic  wine.  The  very  converse  has  been  maintained  by  Weisse : 
that  in  this  mystical  understanding  of  the  passage,  1  John  v. 
originated  the  invention  of  this  pretended  fact.  But  how  ?  Is 
it  a  correct  view,  that  v.  35  refers  only  to  the  last  words  of  v. 
34  ?  The  yap,  v.  36,  proves  the  very  reverse  ;  verses  36  and 
37  show  that  the  testimony  of  the  Evangelist  attaches  weight 
preeminently  to  the  fact,  that  by  divine  dispensation  the  body 
of  Jesus  remained  in  every  respect  unmutilated.     Under  these 


The  taking  down  from  the  Cross  and  the  Burial.    401 

circumstances,  it  must  remain  undecided,  whether  the  Evano-e- 
list  mentions  the  flowing  forth  of  the  hlood  and  water  with  a 
special  object,  or  merely  in  view  of  its  historical  importance  in 
connection  with  the  mention  of  the  thrust  with  the  lance. — In 
what  way,  now,  is  the  fact  to  be  regarded  anatomically  ?  The 
view  might  be  taken,  that  Jesus  was  killed  by  the  thrust  with 
the  lance.  Assuming  this  view,  it  might  be  said,  that  the 
"blood  and  water,"  aJfia  xal  udwp,  was  a  reddish  lymph, 
(Paulus,)  (which  is  contradicted,  however,  by  the  depth  of  the 
wound,)  or  it  is  what  is  called  the  lymphatic  humor,  which,  in 
cases  of  bleeding  to  death  in  the  open  air,  follows  the  blood, 
(Ilase,  3d  ed.)  But  it  is  far  more  probable  that  the  Evangelist 
coincides  in  the  opinion  he  imputes  to  the  soldiers,  that  death 
had  already  taken  place.  The  question  then  comes  up  :  can 
blood  and  water  flow  from  corpses  ?  The  statements  on  this 
point  are  conflicting.  Krabbe  (Leben  Jesu,  p.  508,)  asserts 
that  anatomists  confirm  the  separation  of  blood  in  corpses,  into 
clots  and  serum ;  Hase  (2d  ed.  p.  258,)  says,  that  precisely  at 
the  time  that  a  corpse  begins  to  putrefy,  blood  and  water  flow 
out ;  Winer,  (Bealworterb.  i.  673,)  that  blood  and  water  flow 
from  the  parts  where  the  great  veins  lie  ;  Strauss  and  De  Wette 
mention  the  testimony  of  anatomists,  that  within  an  hour 
after  death  the  blood  coagulates  and  ceases  to  flow  out,  and 
this  is  certainly  the  statement  of  anatomists  in  general;  the 
varying  testimonies  arise  from  the  fact,  that  a  difference  is 
made  by  the  time  of  dissection,  by  the  influence  of  climate, 
and  especially  by  the  character  of  the  disease.  And  at  this 
point  the  question  comes  up,  as  to  what  portion  of  the  body 
the  spear  came  in  contact  with.  Already  Calvin  and  Grotius, 
and  subsequently  the  physician  Gruner,  held  the  view,  that  the 
part  struck  was  the  pericardium,  in  which,  especially  during 
powerful  anguish,  a  vapor  collects,  which  changes  into  water 
on  coming  in  contact  with  the  air,  (Tlildebrand,  Anatom.  iii.  p. 
308.)  The  explanation  is,  however,  a  highly  precarious  one, 
(Strauss,  ii.  549,  Eng.  tran.  iii.  292.)  The  question  has  been 
brought  to  a  new  and  apparently  satisfactory  result,  by  the 
learned  investigation  of  Ebrard,  (ii.  698,  seq.)  On  the  basis 
of  medical  observation,  he  directs  special  attention  to  the 
influence  exercised  by  stretching  of  the  muscles,  and  by  extra- 


402  Chap.  XIX.  — v.  36-42. 

vasation,  on  the  condition  of  the  blood  of  persons  in  suffering, 
and  of  the  dead,  and  closes  his  examination  with  this  result: 
"  The  lance  might  strike  several  blood-vessels,  it  might  come 
in  contact  with  points  at  which  extravasated  blood  was  col- 
lected, where  serum  and  placenta  were  in  a  state  of  separation, 
and  the  former  alone  flowed  out,  and  as  the  lance  entered  more 
deeply,  it  might  touch  places  in  which  the  blood  was  fluid." 

V.  36,  37.  That  the  body  of  Jesus  did  not  suffer  that  mu- 
tilation, and  was  but  pierced  with  a  lance,  was  an  exemption 
of  such  a  character  that  in  this  incidental  feature,  also,  Christ, 
the  true  Easter  lamb  of  the  spiritual  Church,  was  conformed  to 
the  Paschal  lamb  of  the  Old  Testament,  (Exod.  xii.  46  ;)  thereby 
also,  was  fulfilled  a  prophecy  of  Zechariah,  which  seems  to 
speak  determinately  of  the  death  of  the  Messiah,  although  its 
interpretation,  as  indeed  the  exposition  of  this  remarkable 
prophet,  in  general,  is  still  veiled  in  mystery.  That  we  cannot, 
with  Calvin,  Grotius,  Rosenmuller,  understand  in  Zechar.  xii. 
10,  the  word  "'p-l  metaphorically  in  the  sense,  "to  wound," 
(hurt  the  feelings,  or  the  character.  Tr.)  has  recently  not  only 
been  established  by  Ilengstenberg,  but  has  been  acknowledged 
by  Hitzig  and  Ewald ;  for  certainly  the  person  pierced,  who  is 
introduced  as  speaking,  cannot  be  Jehovah,  but  is  that  myste- 
rious angel  of  the  Lord,  who  appears  repeatedly  in  this  very 
prophet.  Both  the  prophet  and  Evangelist,  by  the  expression 
"they  shall  look,"  6<povTo.c^  design  to  indicate  a  penitential  con- 
templation, (viii.  28.)  It  is  worthy  of  remark  that  the  literal 
translation  of  the  Old  Testament  passage  here,  coincides  with 
that  in  Rev.  i.  7,  while  the  Septuagint  expresses  the  metaphori- 
cal meaning :  iTie^Uipovrac  rtpoz  //£,  avd-^  (Lv  -/.arMp-^qaavro^  "  they 
shall  look  upon  me,  because  they  have  mocked  me." 

V.  38-40.  The  proof  of  the  reverence  which  these  two  men 
of  rank,  secretly  adherents  of  Jesus,  pay  to  his  lifeless  body,  is 
the  more  remarkable,  as  by  this  ignominious  death  of  his  the 
faith  which  they  had  in  him,  and  the  hopes  which  in  their 
minds  were  linked  with  him,  seemed  to  have  been  proved  to  be 
groundless.  With  how  much  more  strength  does  Nicodemus 
seem  invested  here,  than  in  ch.  vii.  51 !  Now  he  has  reached 
the  meaning  of  the  declaration  iii.  14.  From  Luke  xxiii.  53, 
we  might  be  led  to  suppose  that  Joseph  himself  had  effected 


The  taking  down  from  the  Cross  and  the  Burial.    403 

the  taking  down  of  the  body  from  the  cross,  against  which 
view  it  appears,  according  to  John,  that  this  had  already  been 
done  by  the  soldiers,  for  aipttv  must  here  be  understood  differ- 
ently from  V.  31,  (there  referring  to  the  taking  down  from  the 
cross,  here  meaning)  "to  take  away."  The  body,  then,  which 
had  been  taken  down  by  the  soldiers,  was  committed  to 
Joseph,  cf  Matt,  xxvii.  58,  Mark  xv.  43,  seq.'  —  The  large 
quantity  of  pulverized  myrrh  and  aloes  which  was  scattered 
between  the  wrappings,  is  in  keeping  with  the  greatness  of  the 
veneration  felt  by  Nicodemus. 

V.  41,  42.  According  to  the  Synoptists,  the  grave  belonged 
t/V  Joseph  himself,  and  John  also  leaves  this  to  be  inferred,  for 
they  could  not  have  laid  the  body  of  a  crucified  man  in  any 
new  family  sepulchre  they  might  please.  As,  however,  the 
vicinity  of  this  sepulchre  is  assigned  as  the  reason  why  the 
interment  took  place  in  it,  it  is  to  be  supposed  that  Joseph  may 
not  at  first  have  intended  to  give  up  his  family  vault  for  this 
purpose. 

1  Unless,  indeed,  it  be  understood  in  this  way,  that  after  the  breaking  of  the  legs 
they  waited  a  while,  although  no  one  aslied  for  the  body ;  in  that  case  alpeiv  can  be 
taken  in  the  same  sense  in  y.  31  as  in  88. 


CHAPTER   XX.^ 


The  resurrection  of  our  Lord  is  not  less  a  postulate  of 
history  than  of  doctrinal  theology.  Without  it,  the  Christian 
Church  is  inconceivable.  The  greater  the  importance  of  the 
fact,  the  clearer  the  testimony  of  history  for  it,  the  more  have 
the  enemies  of  Christianity  been  tempted  to  make  their  assault 
upon  it,  and  the  more  unsuccessful  have  their  assaults  been. 
There  could  be  but  a  single  election :  Christianity  was  either 
to  be  despoiled  of  her  Good  Friday  or  of  her  Easter ;  it  was 
either  to  be  made  good  that  the  Saviour  rose,  but  had  not  really 
died,  or  that  he  really  died  but  did  not  rise.  The  latter  alterna- 
tive was  the  one  embraced  so  early  as  the  time  of  the  Jewish 
opposers  of  Christ  (Matt,  xxviii.  13,)  and  of  Celsus,  and  at  a 
later  period  by  the  English  Deists:  Woolston,  (Discourses  on 
the  Miracles  of  the  Saviour,  1727-1729,)  Chubb,  (Posthumous 
Works,  1748,  i.  330,  seq.)  and  "The  Resurrection  considered," 
1744,  (attributed  to  Morgan,)  and  the  author  of  the  "Wolfen- 
biittel  Fragments,"  (in  the  fourth  Contribution.)  These  older 
assaults  sacrificed  to  the  aversion  felt  by  their  authors  toward 
miracles,  the  character  of  the  Apostles  for  honesty,  but  they 
could  not  solve  that  mystery  of  a  falsehood  which  could  have 
been  invented  for  no  advantage  but  that  of  bonds  and  martyr- 
dom, a  falsehood  which  was  defended  with  a  joyousness  of 
faith  and  with  an  enthusiasm  which  overcame  the  world,  a 
falsehood  for  which,  after  all,  no  other  motive  could  be  assigned 
than  the  improbable  wish  of  avenging  the  delusion  practiced 
on  themselves,  by  deluding  others.  German  rationalism  has 
given  up  this  mode  of  getting  out  of  the  difficulty,  and  has 
acknowleged  that  something  must  have  occurred  between  the 

1 A  good  dogmatico-historical  monograph  on  the  resurrection  of  Christ  is  furnished 
in  the  work :  De  Jesu  in  vitum  reditu,  b/  Dcedes,  Utrecht,  1841. 
(404) 


The  Resurrection.  405 

period  when  tlie  Apostles  were  like  frightened  deer,  and 
gathered  with  closed  doors  in  Jerusalem,  and  that  period  when, 
threatened  by  the  authorities  of  their  country,  they  boldly 
proclaimed :  "  We  cannot  but  speak  the  things  which  we  have 
seen  and  heard,"  (Acts  iv.  20.)  "Ity  says  Dr.  Paulus,  (Komm. 
iii.  p.  867,)  "if  we  take  in,  with  a  historic  glance,  the  account 
of  the  origin  of  Christianity,  from  the  last  evening  of  the  life 
of  Jesus  to  the  end  of  the  fifty  days  that  followed,  it  is  undenia- 
ble that  in  this  brief  interval  something  of  a  wholly  extraordi- 
nary character  in  inspiring  their  courage,  must  have  occurred 
to  have  brought  tlie  Apostles,  who  timorously  fled  on  that  night, 
who  were  to  the  last  degree  destitute  of  self-reliance  and  help- 
less, to  have  brought  them  to  the  point  at  which  they  stood, 
when  exalted  above  all  fear  of  death  in  the  presence  of  the 
judges  of  the  murdered  Jesus,  judges  exasperated  to  the  last 
degree,  they  exclaimed:  'We  ought  to  obey  God  rather  than 
men.'"  "Something  extraordinary  must  have  occurred,"  so 
Strauss,  also,  declares,  (ii.  p.  631,  4th  ed.,  Eng.  tr.  iii.  366.) 
But  that  extraordinary  occurrence  is  not,  as  one  might  in 
accordance  with  the  laws  of  the  mind  expect,  to  be  sought  in  an 
impulse  from  some  external  source,  not  (as  rationalism  supposed,, 
in  the  resuscitation  of  one,  who,  while  apparently  dead,  had  been 
interred,  but  in  an  internal  process  of  the  imagination  which 
embodied  into  a  personal  appearing  that  Jesus  whom  faith 
knew  as  glorified  with  God,  and  whose  spiritual  nearness  it 
experienced.  The  death  of  Christ  and  Good  Friday  with  it, 
belong  to  reality,  but  Easter  morning  lies  in  the  domain  of  the 
fancy.  Without  entering  into  a  reply  to  what  has  been  leveled 
against  this  point  in  the  warfare  upon  it,  (and  it  has  justly  been 
styled  the  Achilles  heel  of  the  whole  mythical  treatment  of  the 
life  of  Jesus,)  we  would  merely  remark,  that  it  stands  or  falls 
with  the  historical  credibility  of  the  narrative  in  regard  to 
Thomas,  stands  or  falls,  consequently,  with  the  genuineness  of 
the  Gospel  of  John.  The  hypothesis  mentioned,  has  remained 
the  undivided  property  of  its  author.  Weissc,  indeed,  has 
employed  himself  in  reshaping  those  fancies  in  regard  to  the 
risen  Christ,  with  which  Strauss  would  have  nothing  to  do,  by 
explaining  them  as  ghost-like  influences  of  the  Redeemer  after 
his  death. — The  negative  criticism  has  derived  here  also,  the 

2b 


406  Chap.  XX.  — v.  1,  2. 

external  support  for  its  attacks  from  the  discrepancies  of  the 
Evangelists.  They  are  undoubtedlj  more  numerous  on  this 
point  than  on  others  in  the  history,  though  (with  two  exceptions 
perhaps,)  not  of  any  more  importance.  The  most  serious  diflS.- 
cult}',  is  that  which  rests  on  Matt,  xxviii.  7,  10,  cf.  xxvi.  32, 
inasmuch  as  Matthew  seems  to  know  of  no  other  appearings 
of  Jesus  to  the  Disciples,  than  those  in  Galilee.  If  w^e  consider 
ourselves  authorized  to  judge  in  a  general  way  of  that  passage 
without  reference  to  the  character  of  the  Gospel  of  Matthew, 
we  might  with  Doedes,  1.  c.  128,  and  Ebrard,  ii.  p.  728,  say  that 
Christ's  language  referred  to  his  appearing  in  the  presence  of 
the  mass  of  his  Disciples;  it  is  self-evident,  too," that  he  did  not 
command  his  Disciples  to  depart  immediately,  but  only  at  the 
close  of  the  week  of  the  feast.  But  it  is  better  to  bear  in  mind 
in  addition,  that  the  Gospel  of  Matthew  is,  as  a  general  thing, 
an  account  especially  of  what  was  acted  on  the  theatre  of 
Galilee.  We  w^ould  only  direct  attention,  then,  further  to  the 
fact  that  in  Matt,  xxviii.  16  mention  is  made  of  a  mountain 
designated  by  Jesus  as  a  spot  where  the  Disciples  were  to 
assemble,  which  shows  that  there  were  appearances  of  Christ 
which  Matthew  left  unmentioned.  On  the  patristic  attempts  to 
reconcile  the  discrepancies,  see  Niemeyer  de  Evang.  de  narran- 
do  in  Christi  reditu  dissensione,  1824,  on  those  of  a  more 
recent  date,  see  Griesbach,  who  (in  his  Dissertation  de  fontibus 
unde  Evang.  suas  de  resurrectione  domino  narrationes.  Op.  ii.,) 
carries  out  the  view  that  each  Evangelist  records  the  reports 
about  the  risen  Saviour  in  the  order  in  which  they  came  to 
him.  The  most  recent  attempts  will  be  found  noticed  in 
Ebrard. 

The  enemies  of  the  Redeemer  were  to  see  him  no  more 
when  he  had  risen,  this  w^as  the  privilege  of  his  friends  alone, 
but  he  no  longer  makes  his  abode  even  in  their  circle,  but 
appears  only  at  intervals.  The  forty  days  preceding  the  Ascen- 
sion, are  a  period  of  transition  to  our  Lord  himself,  who  was 
no  longer  bound  by  the  ordinary  conditions  of  earthly  being; 
they  were  also  a  period  of  transition  for  the  Disciples,  who 
w^ere  to  be  weaned  from  the  relations  of  outward  sense  to 
him. 


Christ  appears  to  Mary  Magdalene  407 

Christ  appears  to  Mary  Magdalene  after   his  Resurrec- 
tion.—  V.  1-18. 

Y.  1,  2.  Just  at  this  point  wc  find  the  three  Synoptists 
differing  from  one  another,  and  from  .lohn.  Before  entering 
iu  detail  upon  tliese  differences,  on  which  critics  have  in  recent 
times  laid  such  stress,  it  must  first  of  all  he  made  clear,  why 
such  differences  are  inevitable  in  all  historical  writings,  in  the 
next  place,  that  they  arc  found  in  all  profane  authors,  and 
finally,  what  their  relation  is  to  the  interests  of  religion ;  here 
belongs  my  dissertation  "  on  the  relation  of  differences  in 
detail,  to  truth  upon  the  whole,"  in  my  Glaubwiirdigkeit  der 
ev.  Geschichte,  "  Credibility  of  the  Evangelical  History,"  p. 
3T0,  seq.  2d  ed.  (p.  456,  seq.)  The  most  recent  criticism  has 
banished  all  attempts  at  reconciliation  "  to  the  lumber-room  of 
antiquated  harmonistics."  But  as  there  is  no  department  of 
history  where  the  very  same  thing  must  not  be  employed,  it 
can  only  be  regarded  as  the  result  of  enmity  to  the  evan- 
gelical history,  when  men  repel,  just  in  its  case,  all  efforts  at 
reconciliation.  It  is  possible  that  in  the  events  here  detailed,  it 
may  be  as  Olshausen,  following  Griesbach  and  Hess,  represents 
it:  "The  accounts  of  the  Synoptists,  (and  of  John,)  form  two 
parallel  series ;  John  relates  merely  what  he  witnessed,  the 
Synoptists  probably  heard  what  they  relate,  from  one  of  the 
women.  By  simply  assuming  now,  that  Mary  Magdalene  sepa- 
rated herself  from  the  women,  first  came  to  the  sepulchre  alone, 
and  then  called  Peter  and  John  thither,  the  parallel  character 
of  the  two  accounts  becomes  clear  and  palpable.  The  course 
of  events  is  then  the  following :  Early  in  the  morning,  Mary 
Magdalene  with  the  other  women,  repairs  to  the  sepulchre,  but 
hastens  in  advance  of  them,  and  to  her  amazement  finds  the 
sepulchre  empty.  Mary  at  once  goes  in  haste  to  Peter  and  John, 
meanwhile  the  other  women  come  up,  see  the  angels,  and  hear 
their  words.  After  the  women  have  gone,  Mary  comes  back 
with  the  two  Disciples,  who  after  examining  the  grave  return 
home,  while  Mary  still  remains  at  the  grave  weeping,  and  here 
the  angels  show  themselves  to  her  also,  and  then  our  Lord 
himself  appears.     After  this  appearing,  which  was  confined  to 


408  Chap.  XX.— v.  3-13. 

Mary,  our  Lord  revealed  himself  to  the  women  also  on  their 
way  back."  (Translation  of  Olshausen's  Comm.  vol.  iv.  273, 
Clark's  For.  Theol.  Libr.)  The  absence  of  a  solicitous  exact- 
ness on  the  part  of  the  Evangelists  in  their  narratives,  which 
makes  it  so  easy  to  show  contradiction  in  them,  is  here  proven 
by  the  use  of  the  plural  ojoa/zsv,  in  v.  2,  which,  as  Strauss  can- 
not deny,  (ii.  p.  573,  Eng  tr.  iii.  314,)  removes  the  main  point 
in  the  difference,  since  it  is  apparent  from  the  use  of  the  plural, 
that  John  also  knew  of  several  women,  though  he  only  men- 
tions the  Magdalene.  Hd^^ara  here  means  weeJc,  and  the  car- 
dinal number  {[J-cd)  is  used  instead  of  the  ordinal  in  accordance 
with  the  usage  of  the  later  Hebrew,  and  especially  of  the 
Aramean,  (Winer,  p.  224,  4th  ed.,  Eng.  trausl.  196.)  The  fact 
of  the  taking  away  of  the  stone,  leads  to  the  inference  of  the 
taking  away  of  the  body — not  exactly  with  an  inimical  design, 
as  the  question  of  Mary  to  the  gardener,  v.  15,  shows.  The 
woman  hastens  not  to  her  female,  but  to  her  male,  friends.  It 
may  be  asked  whether  she  must  not  necessarily  encounter  her 
female  friends  as  she  returned ;  but  on  the  other  side  it  may  be 
asked :  what  if  these  were  going  by  the  usual  road,  and  Mary, 
as  the  means  of  returning  more  quicMy^  struck  into  a  by-way? 
"What  if  it  was  necessary  for  her  to  take  a  different  path  from 
theirs  to  get  to  Peter?  Cf.  what  Hess  (Th.  iii.  p.  465,  seq.) 
adduces  from  Josephus. — From  the  repetition  of  the  ;r/>6c,  Ben- 
gel  concludes  that  John  was  not  in  the  same  place  as  Peter. 

V.  3-10.  The  imperfect  rj^r/^ovzo,  is  used  of  an  action  in 
passing.  The  inquisitiveness  prompted  by  love,  perhaps,  also, 
his  more  youthful  years,  caused  John  to  run  in  advance  of 
Peter;  he  sees,  with  what  could  have  been  no  slight  surprise, 
the  linen  clothes  lying,  a  fact  which  contradicted  the  supposi- 
tion that  the  body  had  been  taken  away.  The  more  courageous 
Peter  enters  the  vault,  (cf.  on  xi.  38,)  and  now  notices  that  the 
different  parts  of  the  burial  clothes  are  laid  apart  as  carefully 
as  if  the  person  on  whom  they  had  been  had  done  it,  John 
also  sees  this,  and  ventures  to  believe  in  a  resurrection.  That 
the  iTttffTsoasv  refers  to  faith  in  the  account  given  by  the  Mag- 
dalene, V.  2,  (Erasmus,  Grotius,  Heumann,)  is  inadmissible, 
since  the  very  fact  that  the  linen  clcthes  were  carefully  laid 
aside  would,  on  the  contrary,  put  a  robbery  out  of  the  question. 


Christ  appears  to  Mary  Magdalene.  409 

Bat  neither  can  we,  with  Ebrard,  refer  the  knioTzoazv  to  the 
same  object  as  dds,  to  wit:  the  linen  laid  off  with  regularity, 
for  then  the  connection  with  v.  9  is  broken,  nor  is  it  said  that 
Peter  had  given  John  an  assurance  about  it,  on  the  contrary, 
according  to  v.  5,  John  had  seen  the  things  himself.  It  is  true 
the  Tzcarz'jtcu  here,  also,  (see  on  ii.  11,)  expresses  a  lower  degree 
of  faith,  the  mere  fiiith  in  a  probability,  like  that  faint  hope 
expressed  by  the  Disciples  who  went  to  Emmaus,  Luke  xxiv. 
21.  The  account  of  the  same  fact  in  Luke  xxiv.  12,  mentions 
Peter  only,  to  whom  luonder  merely  is  attributed;  a  similar 
absence  of  care  on  the  part  of  the  narrator  is  very  clearly  seen 
there,  moreover,  since  from  the  rfvic,  v.  24,  it  is  manifest  that 
Peter  did  not  go  to  the  grave  alone.  A  faith  in  the  resurrec- 
tion of  Christ  based  on  Scripture,  John  represents  as  the  higher 
grade,  the  Scripture  here,  also,  representing  only  the  objective 
divine  counsel,  cf  idtt,  Luke  xxiv.  26.  As  to  the  difficulty 
often  urged,  of  understanding  how  the  Disciples  should  not 
have  remembered  the  predictions  of  the  resurrection  so  dis- 
tinctly made,  we  have  but  to  bear  in  mind,  that  while  they 
easily  comprehended  the  verbal  meaning  of  the  announcements, 
tliey  ma}'  have  regarded  the  expressions  as  figurative,  (cf.  Luke 
ix.  45,  Mark  ix.  10.) 

V.  11-13.  The  hurrying  Disciples  had  been  slowly  followed 
by  Mary ;  it  v[iQ.y  be  asked  then  :  why  did  she  still  weep  when  the 
Disciples  must  have  comforted  her  ?  It  is  questionable,  whether 
they  met  her  on  her  return.  But  if  they  did,  the  reason  of 
their  hope,  which  was  still  far  from  certainty,  might  not  at 
once  comfort  her  woman's  heart  which  had  been  so  deeply 
agitated.  Luther  makes  some  fine  sujrgestions  in  regard  to  the 
unbounded  character  of  her  sorrow.  He  directs  attention,  for 
example,  to  the  fact  that  the  other  women,  when  they  see  the 
angelic  appearance,  fly,  (Mark  xvi.  5,)  but  not  so  Mary:  "so 
full  of  devotion,  longing  and  love  toward  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
is  she,  that  she  neither  sees  nor  hears."  The  angelic  appear- 
ances cannot  well  be  transferred  to  the  realm  of  mere  fancy, 
although  the  Apostles  themselves  supposed  that  the  women 
were  susceptible  of  an  illusion  of  the  fancy,  (Luke  xxiv.  23,) — 
"none  but  the  angels  at  the  resurrection  seem  to  belong  to 
history,'"  (Ease,  ev.  Dogm.  p.  115,  2d  cd.)  —  but  just  as  little 

36 


410  Chap.  XX.  — v.  14-18. 

have  the  writers  of  the  Bible  apprehended  such  appearances  as 
ordinary  facts  of  the  world  of  sense.  They  several  times  con- 
nect with  angelic  appearances,  the  terms  o-zaaia  and  opafia, 
(Luke  i.  22,  Acts  x.  3 ;)  the  angels,  consequently,  may  have 
been  perceived  only  when  the  mind  was  in  an  exalted  condition, 
and  by  the  inner  sense. 

V.  14,  15.  The  woman  turning  round  perceived  Jesus,  with- 
out recognizing  him — was  this  the  result  of  her  sorrow  merely  ? 
See  in  answer  to  this  question,  what  is  said  on  v.  19. —  The 
sepulchre  lay  in  a  garden,  and  whom  would  she  more  naturally 
expect  to  see  at  this  early  hour  of  the  morning  than  the 
gardener  ?  Hug  has  directed  attention  to  an  additional  circum- 
stance which  may  strengthen  this  conjecture,  (Freib.  Zeitschr. 
H.  7,  p.  162,  seq.)  When  persons  were  crucified  they  were 
stripped  with  the  exception  of  the  subligaculum,  the  cloth  about 
the  loins ;  Jesus  had  no  other  covering  than  this  when  he  was 
interred.  But  this  was  also  the  solitary  piece  of  clothing  worn 
by  laborers  in  the  field:  and  thus  Maiy's  conjecture  is  made 
natural.  Ahvov,  Bengel :  putat,  hortulano  statim  constare,  quem 
velit,  "she  thinks  that  the  gardener  will  at  once  understand 
whom  she  means."  'J/>a>,  Bengel :  parata  est  novum  sepulcrum 
queerere,  "she  is  prepared  to  seek  a  new  sepulchre,"  but  there 
lies  more  in  her  words  than  this :  Luther,  "  In  sooth,  she  would 
have  had  a  goodly  burden,  a  woman  undertaking  to  carry  a 
dead  body.  But  just  so  every  Christian  heart,  which  truly 
loves  Christ,  is  ready  to  think  that  it  has  strength  enough  to 
do  whatever  it  wills  to  do." 

v.  16-18.  It  seems  as  if  while  she  speaks  to  the  gardener, 
as  she  supposes,  she  turns  her  eyes  away  from  him,  and  not 
until  he  speaks  to  her  again  turns  herself  round;  that  tone  in 
which  she  as  a  penitent  sinner  had  heard  herself  addressed  in 
the  most  important  moment  of  her  life,  she  now  reeognizes 
once  more  ;  she  breaks  forth  into  the  wonted  address  and  per- 
haps sinks  at  the  feet  of  the  risen  Redeemer,  or  places  her  hands 
upon  him  to  be  satisfied  of  his  reality.  Cod.  13  adds:  -/jn 
7tpo<;£dpapisv  d(/>a<7&ou  abrou,  "and  she  ran  to  touch  him."  The 
language  of  our  Lord,  fxj  jxou  anrou,  has  seemed  so  diflicult  to 
understand,  that  a  change  in  the  reading  itself  has  been  pro- 
posed.    Even  Liicke  is  disposed  to  read  ou  [xou  dKzoo,  as  Schul- 


Christ  appears  to  Mary  Magdalene.  411 

thess  had  suggested.  The  main  question  in  forming  oui 
estimation  of  the  numerous  efforts  at  explanation  is,  whethei 
they  harmonize  with  the  meaning  of  a-rtadal  Tivo<:'i  We 
would  make  the  following  classification  of  them :  1)  iiv.zzadac^ 
to  touch,  to  finger,  to  feel,  a)  Dr.  Paulus :  *'  Do  not  lay  a  linger  on 
me  for  my  wounds  still  smart."  J)  Weisse :  "Do  not  lay  a 
finger  on  me,  for  I  am  still  spiritual  and  have  a  body  yet  to 
attain."  c)  Schleiermacher,  Olshausen,  (1st  and  3d  ed.)  "Do  not 
touch  me,  for  I  am  still  passing  through  the  process  of  glorifi 
cation,  and  my  flesh  is  still  susceptible  of  injury."  But  thus  the 
process  of  glorification  would  be  preposterously  represented 
after  the  analogy  of  a  cicatrizing  wound,  d)  Fr.  v.  Meyer, 
Fikenscher :  "Thou  needest  not  touch  me  —  to  wit:  to  test 
whether  I  am  a  spirit  or  not,  (v.  27,  Luke  xxiv.  39,)  —  for  I 
have  not  yet  been  taken  from  the  earth." — 2)  To  lay  hold  of, 
cling  to  any  one,  here  especially  of  clinging  to  the  knees  or  to 
the  feet  to  kiss  them,  as  in  Matt,  xxviii.  9.  a)  Beza,  Piscator, 
Gerhard,  Maldonatus,  Heumann,  Mosheim:  "Do  not  delay 
wnth  me,  thou  wilt  have  time  enough  for  intercourse  with  me, 
for  I  will  remain  several  weeks  with  you,  hasten  rather,  &c." 
h)  Camero,  Kypke,  Kuinol,  Meyer:  "Embrace  not  my  knees, 
for  I  am  not  yet  glorified,  and  this  divine  reverence  to  me  is 
not  yet  proper."  e)  Chrysostom,  Luther :  "  Do  not  kiss  and  lay 
a  finger  on  me  so  familiarly  as  in  former  days,  for  although  I 
have  not  yet  ascended,  I  am  soon  to  ascend."  d)  Augustine, 
Calvin,  Melancthon,  Grotius,  Lanipe,  Olshausen,  (2d  ed.)Xeau- 
der  :  "  Thou  must  not  so  cling  to  my  earthly  appearance,  for  I 
am  not  yet  in  that  glorified  condition  in  which  thou  may  est 
abide  with  me."  3)  To  divell  upon  a  thing  spiritually.  De 
"Wette :  "  Be  not  absorbed  in  my  present  appearance,  the  aban- 
donment of  yourself  to  this  feeling  cannot  truly  satisfy  you." 
This  third  mode  of  apprehending  the  expression,  has  this 
especially  to  favor  it,  that  it  dispenses  with  the  necessity  of 
supposing  some  gesture  on  Mary's  part  to  give  completeness  to 
the  narrative  of  the  Evangelist,  a  gesture  of  which  he  has  made 
no  mention,  and  yet  of  which  had  it  occurred  we  would  expect 
some  mention  in  a  method  of  narration  so  plastic  as  his. 
Against  it  lies  the  objection  that  the  usage  of  tir.zza&ai  r^voc  in 
this  sense  is  not  sufiiciently  established;   used  of  things,  it 


412  Chap.  XX.  — v.  18-20. 

certainly  means,  " to  engage  in,  trouble  ones  self  with,  and  of 
persons,  in  a  bad  sense,  to  designate  a  violent  assault,  (Plato, 
Pol.  V.  465,  B.  Menex.  244,  A.)  but  is  it  used  also  in  a  good 
sense  ?  Passow  certainl}',  in  tbe  4th  ed.  of  Lis  Lexicon,  admits 
that  it  may  be  used  of  persons  with  whom  one  has  to  do,  either 
in  a  good  or  in  a  bad  sense.  Against  the  second  interpretation 
may  be  urged,  that  it  seems  to  make  the  expression  mean  too 
much.  Nevertheless  the  very  expression  (iTtrsa&at  Trodoju,  youdrcov, 
is  connected  with  Trpoqxuvztv  in  Pindar,  Nem.  viii.  v.  22,  in  Ho- 
mer, and  in  the  Septuagint,  2  Kings  iv.  27,  and  expresses  a 
supplicatory  embracing  of  the  knees,  nor  is  it  easy  to  believe 
that  Mary,  under  the  impulse  of  the  vehement  emotion  excited 
by  seeing  our  Lord,  would  have  refrained  from  expressing  her 
feelings  by  a  gesture,  and  supposing  her  to  have  made  one,  we 
are  reminded  ver}'-  naturally  of  Matt,  xxviii.  9,  where  it  is  said 
of  the  women  :  al  dk  izpozeX&ouaac  iy.pdr/]aav  auzou  touq  r.odaQ,  xac 
7:po^sx'Jyr^(Tau  auzTp,  "  the}'  came  and  held  him  by  the  feet  and 
worshiped  him."  If  we  decide  for  this  meaning  of  ditTsa&ac, 
the  method  of  taking  it  suggested  under  d,  would  deserve  the 
preference ;  for  the  first  has  against  it,  that  if  it  AA'ere  correct, 
the  reason  for  forbidding  the  touching,  would  have  been  differ- 
ently stated,  perhaps  by  ourtco  yap  dva^ahco,  or  something  of  the 
sort ;  to  the  view  under  5,  is  opposed  the  fact,  that  Christ,  Matt, 
xxviii.  9,  does  not  prevent  the  adoration,  and  that  the  iipoaxuvrjcc^, 
as  it  was  not  a  divine  adoration,  was  not  rejected  by  him  even  at 
an  earlier  period,  (Luke  v.  8,  Matt.  xvii.  14,  Mark  x.  17 ;)  to  the 
view  under  c,  the  meaning  of  the  word  is  opposed.  In  the  first 
class,  the  most  tenable  view  is  that  of  Fr.  v.  Meyer,  although 
the  thought  00  yap  Tzvsupd  eipi,  is  certainly  not  expressed  with 
sufficient  clearness  by  outico  yap  dva^i^r^xa.  Liicke  adduces  as 
an  additional  reason  against  it,  that  Christ  himself,  Luke  xxiv. 
39,  John  XX.  27,  invited  a  test  by  the  touch,  but  to  this  the 
reply  may  be  made :  that  supposing  Mary  to  have  placed  her 
hand  upon  him  to  assure  herself  of  his  reality,  the  words  p-j  poo 
aTTTou  are  not  to  be  regarded  as  prohibitory,  but,  as  what  follows 
shows,  as  a  tranquilizing  address,  "  Thou  needest  not  feel  me, 
for,  &c."  In  our  judgment,  more  than  one  of  the  views  offered 
may  claim  a  character  of  probability,  but  we  are  not  prepared 
to   decide  which  is  entitled  to  the   preference. —  The   words 


The  risen  Saviour  appears  to  the  Apostles.       413 

duaSacucOj  &c.,  which  recall  the  promise  in  the  last  discourses 
of  Jesus,  comprehend  in  them  something  consolatory.  They 
express  the  triumphant  exaltation  of  the  Redeemer  himself  to 
glory,  and  a  participation  on  the  part  of  the  Disciples  in  that 
love  of  the  Father,  which  he,  the  first-born  enjoys ;  of  both 
these,  his  farewell  discourse  had  spoken,  (xiv.  28,  xvii.  20-26.) 


The  risen  Saviour  appears  to  tue  Apostles. — v.  19-23. 

V.  19,  20.  It  would  seem  that  this  is  the  same  appearance 
after  the  resurrection,  detailed  in  Luke  xxiv.  36,  seq.;  there  is 
a  similarity  not  only  in  the  facts,  but  in  the  words  of  Christ,  (v. 
48,  49.)^  As  to  the  reading,  we  would  observe,  that  according 
to  Cod.  A  B  D,  auurjfjiiuo:  should  ])e  rejected  from  the  text. 
In  the  opinion  of  the  Fathers,  and  the  theologians  of  the 
Lutheran  Church,  it  is  a  just  inference  from  the  text,  that  Jesus 
passed  through  the  closed  doors,  and  consequently  must  have 
risen  in  a  glorified  body.^  This  view  seems  to  be  favored  by 
the  fact  that  his  Disciples  did  not  recognize  him,  v.  14,  ch.  xxi. 
4,  Luke  xxiv.  13,  seq.,  by  the  express  declaration,  ^lark  xvi. 
12,  the  sudden  appearing,  John  xxi.  1,  and  the  vanishing,  Luke 
xxiv.  31,  to  which  is  to  be  added  the  doctrinal  argument,  that 
the  resurrection  of  Christians  in  glory  is  designated  as  a  repeti- 
tion or  continuation  of  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  (1  Cor  xv. 
20,  Col.  i.  18.)  Thus  it  is  viewed  at  a  recent  date,  by  Olshau- 
sen,  Krabbe,  ("  The  Doctrine  of  Sin,"  p.  299,  seq.)  F.  Kuhn, 
("How  did  Christ  pass  through  the  door  of  the  grave?"  1838.) 
Reasons,  not  destitute  of  weight,  are  in  conflict  with  this  view. 
The  fact,  indeed,  that  Christ  after  his  resurrection  partook  of 
earthl}^  nourishment,  (Luke  xxiv.  42,  John  xxi.  13,)  may  be  set 
aside  by  the  distinction,  that  the  capacity  to  assimilate  food 
does  not  necessarily  presuppose  its  tiecessiti/;  but  when  the  risen 
Saviour  attributes  to  himself  flesh  and  bo7ies,  Luke  xxiv.  39, 

1  Neander  compares,  also,  the  appearing  before  the  <^6('in<a,  "  twelve,"  1  Cor.  xv. 
5  ;  he  thinks  in  general,  that  Paul  there  brings  in  tlie  appearances  of  Christ  after 
big  resurrection  in  chronological  order,  a  sufiposition  which  would  render  it  neces- 
sary to  transpose  from  Galilee  to  Jerusalem,  the  appearing  before  the  five  hundred. 

2  Cf.  Suicer,  Thes.  eccles.  i.  p.  1418;  Whitby,  dc  intcrp  script,  e  patr.  p.  288,  s; 
Gerhard,  II;uin.  Ev.  sect.  212  ; Onrnstppf, Syst.  Tlieol.  1 . 1 H.  j.( ;;4.  A  I  uthonn  dispu- 
tation for  this  view,  armed  at  every  point,  was  prepared  by  Giintlier,  Leipzig,  1093 

30* 


414  CuAP.  XX.  — V.  21-23. 

can  this  body  be  that  aajiia  rr^^  o6^rj<:^  which  is  ascribed  to  him  in 
his  present  condition  ?  (Philip,  iii.  21.)  Can  this  be  harmonized 
with  the  fact  that  according  to  1  Cor.  vi.  13,  there  shall  be  in 
the  gloritied  state  no  questions  either  about  the  xocXia,  or  about 
the  ^[)io[xaTa,  and  that  "flesh  and  blood"  are  excluded  from 
the  perfected  kingdom  of  God  ?  (1  Cor.  xv.  50.)  On  the  other 
hand:  were  there  no  analogy  between  the  risen  Christ  and 
Christians  when  they  shall  rise,  how  could  Paul  parallel  them? 
Again  :  if  Christ  remained  subject  to  all  the  earlier  conditions 
of  his  earthly  being,  how,  during  the  fifty  days  that  followed 
his  resurrection,  could  he  keep  aloof  from  the  circle  of  his 
Disciples,  when  he  must,  on  this  supposition,  iiave  been 
impelled  to  seek  in  it  to  allay  their  agitation  ?  "We,  conse- 
quently, find  ourselves  compelled  to  take  an  intermediate  view, 
to  suppose  an  essential  change  potentially  in  bodily  organism, 
which  did  not,  however,  come  to  its  completion  until  the  act  of 
ascension.  It  may  be  rendered  very  doubtful  whether  the 
passages  in  John  compel  us  to  suppose  that  a  miracle  took 
place.  A  decided  conclusion  could  be  drawn  from  the  iar/]  ect; 
TO  /liaov,  V.  19,  26,  onl}'^  in  case  it  had  not  been  preceded  by 
fjX&su  and  ifiysrai,  cf.  Luke  xxiv.  36.  The  fact  that  rcou  S^opaip 
xsx?.snT/2sucou  is  repeated  in  v.  26,  without  the  addition  of  oca 
rbu  (pOjSou  Tiov  'JoooaUou,  could  be  strictly  demonstrative  only  in 
case  it  were  connected,  not  with  ipysva:,  but  with  iarv]  ec^  to 
lieaov.  Granting,  however,  that  John  speaks  of  a  miraculous 
appearing  when  the  doors  were  closed,  this  would  be  far  from 
compelling  us  to  think  of  a  body  of  flesh  and  bones  impenetra- 
ting the  wood  of  the  door.  The  remark  is  already  made  by 
Bucer  and  Calvin,  that  John  does  not  write  oca  dopCov  xzxlu- 
aiikviov;  we  may  rather  then,  on  the  supposition  that  John 
speaks  of  a  miracle,  imagine  a  miraculous  opening  of  the  door, 
which  is  not  mentioned,  however,  because  the  Disciples  did  not 
perceive  the  mode  of  entrance. — The  risen  Saviour  presented 
himself  in  their  midst  with  the  salutation  of  peace,  (see  on  xiv. 
27.)  After  he  had  vanquished  death,  and  obtained  the  forgive- 
ness of  sins,  there  was  peace :  the  repetition  in  v.  21  and  v.  26, 
shows  that  something  emphatic  lies  in  this  salutation.  On  v. 
20,  cf.  further  the  remarks  on  v.  25. 

V.  21-23.     They  are  comforted  by  a  reference  to  that  exalted 


The  risen  Saviour  appears  to  the  Apostles.       415 

destination,  which  had  also  been  spoken  of  in  cb.  xvii.  18.  The 
breath  is  the  symbol  of  the  Spirit,  as  is  the  wind,  eh.  iii.  8 ;  it 
is  Jesus  who  breathes  on  them,  that  is,  through  him  the  Spirit 
is  mediated.  Only  by  the  power  of  the  Jloly  Ghost  can  a  judg- 
ment be  formed  as  to  the  moral  position  of  men  and  its  relation 
to  the  kingdom  of  God ;  so  far  the  promise  in  v.  22  is  connected 
with  that  in  v.  23.  This  judgment  of  the  Spirit,  however,  is 
not  an  indistinct  emotion,  but  is  connected  with  the  rule  of 
faith  and  life;  so  far  the  jus  clavium,  "the  power  of  the  keys," 
is  in  the  later  Church  a  right  of  the  clergy.^  It  is  an  important 
question,  Avhether  the  breathing  is  to  be  regarded  as  the  symbol 
of  an  endowment  yet  to  be  conferred,  or  of  one  imparted  at  the 
time.  The  latter  view  is  the  prevalent  one ;  but  as  the  pouring 
out  of  the  Spirit  took  place  at  Pentecost,  we  already  lind  that 
Chrysostom  discriminates  between  diverse  operations  of  the 
Spirit,  in  unison  with  whose  view  Gerhard  says :  Dicendum, 
quod  spiritura  sanctum  jam  ante  acceperiut  ratione  sanctifica- 
tionis,  hie  a^cipiunt  cum  ratione  ministerii  Evangelici ;  in  die 
Peutecostes  accipiunt  eum  ratione  miraculosorum  dononim, 
"  it  may  be  said,  that  they  had  already  received  the  Holy  Spirit 
in  respect  of  sanctificatmi,  here  they  receive  him  in  respect  of 
the  ministry  of  the  Gospel;  on  the  day  of  Pentecost  they  receive 
him  in  respect  of  the  gifts  of  miracles."  These  diverse  qualities, 
however,  are  all  grounded  in  the  same  spiritual  substance,  we 
must,  consequently,  regard  the  whole  of  them  as  from  the  be- 
ginning imparted  potentially,  and  only  becoming  operative  by 
degrees,  or  we  must  bring  them  into  a  gradual  relation.  Cal- 
vin, Bengel,  Liicke,  Olshausen,  regard  the  outpouring  of  the 
Spirit  at  Pentecost  as  a  quantitive  climax  of  the  Spirit,  as  the 
culminating  point ;  but  if  the  Spirit  had  been  imparted  before 
Pentecost,  Avhy  not,  also,  before  this  breathing  on  the  Disciples  ? 
Olshausen,  in  fact,  supposes  that  there  was  an  impartation  of  the 
Spirit  at  the  time  of  the  sending  forth  of  the  Apostles,  men- 
tioned in  Matt.  x.  In  what,  then,  does  this  solemn  act  diifer 
from  that  continued  impartation  of  the  Spirit  which  took  place 
without  any  such  act?     Moreover,  had  this  act  been  one  of 

1  The  promise,  Matt.  xvi.  19,  is  related;  it  would  not  merely  be  related,  but 
would  correspond  with  it,  if  the  "finding"  in  that  passage  could  be  taken  as  equiv- 
alent to  the  Kuariiv,  "  the  retaining,"  in  this. 


416  Chap.  XX.  — v.  24-29. 

essential  moment  to  the  Apostles,  could  Thomas,  who  was  ab- 
sent at  the  time,  be  deprived  of  it  without  detriment  ?  Again, 
does  not  the  expression,  vii.  39,  compel  us  to  regard  the  specific 
impartation  of  the  Spirk  as  a  consequence  of  Christ's  do^aa/xoi;, 
"glorification,"  and  does  not  his  "glorification"  begin  with 
his  "sitting  at  the  right  hand  of  the  Father?"  Finally,  it  is 
to  be  noted  that  in  Luke  xxiv.  49,  also,  reference  is  made  only 
to  the  future.  We  must  return,  then,  to  the  view  of  Grotius 
and  Lampe,  according  to  which  the  symbol  typifies  something 
future.  Liicke  employs  as  an  argument  against  this,  Ezek. 
xxxvii.  9.  But  what  can  that  passage  decide  in  this  question? 
The  prophet  calls  to  the  wind,  which  becomes  a  breath  of  life 
in  the  dead.  We  cannot  even  affirm  that  there  is  here  a  sym- 
bolic, prophetic  action,  the  wind  itself  is  considered  as  the  breath 
of  life.^  In  fact,  most  of  the  symbolical  actions  of  the  prophets 
are  typifications  of  something  future,  (of  this  we  have  a  New 
Testament  example  in  Acts  xxi.  11.)  With  more  justice, 
Strauss,  (ii.  p.  646,)  adduces  the  laying  on  of  hands  for  the  im- 
partation of  the  Spirit,  an  appeal,  too,  might  be  made  to  the 
imperative  /A^zzb.  But  an  absolute  present  time  must  not  be 
inferred  from  the  use  of  it,  since  it  must  be  conceded  that  the 
Apostles  were  at  that  time  in  no  condition  to  exercise  those 
functions  of  spiritual  judgment  of  which  v.  23  speaks. 

Christ  appears  to  Thomas  and  the  other  Apostles. 
v.  24-29. 

V.  24,  25.  In  proportion  as  we  have  marked  the  disposition 
of  recent  times  to  consider  the  Apostles  as  credulous,  in  that 
proportion  is  there  something  striking  in  the  appearance  of  a 
Disciple  with  so  much  critical  reflection  as  Thomas  displays. 
Evidence  is  aiforded  in  his  language,  ch.  xi.  16,  that  the  inmost 
soul  of  this  Disciple  had  been  arrested  by  the  truth  pertaining 
to  Christ's  person,  and  still  further  evidence  is  furnished  by  the 
exclamation  in  which  he  breaks  forth  in  v.  28  of  this  chapter. 
In  virtue  of  this  impression,  he,  too,  must  have  felt  that  cer- 

1  If  it  be  not  better  on  the  whole,  with  Havernick,  Komm.  zum  Ezek.  in  loc,  to 
take  ni"^  in  the  sense  of  Spirit,  in  which  case  the  passage  is  still  less  adapted  to 
prove  what  Liicke  would  use  it  for. 
2  B 


Christ  appears  to  Thomas  and  the  other  Disciples.   417 

tainty  which  the  Disciples  who  went  to  Emmaus  expressed,  that 
all  could  not  be  at  an  end  with  this  Jesus.  But  the  reflection 
of  his  intellect  suppressed  the  wishes  and  anticipations  which 
were  aroused  in  his  feelings.  His  disposition  to  doubt  trans- 
cended in  fact  the  limits  of  mere  caution.  It  is  not  enouffh  for 
him  to  see  the  prints  of  the  nails,  he  will  feel  the;n,  and  even  this 
will  not  satisfy  him,  he  desires  in  addition  to  thrust  his  hand 
into  the  Saviour's  side.  It  seems  almost  inconceivable  that 
from  the  omission  of  a  mention  in  this  place  and  at  v.  20,  of 
prints  in  the  feet,  the  inference  could  be  drawn  that  the  foet 
were  not  pierced  with  nails  in  crucifixion,  yet  even  Liicke  con- 
fidently draws  this  inference.  If  Thomas,  after  feeling  the 
Saviour's  hands  and  side,  had  insisted  on  feeling  his  feet  also, 
would  not  this  doubting  mood  leave  upon  the  mind  the  impres- 
sion of  an  absurdity  ?  Besides  this,  for  any  one  whom  the  tes- 
timony of  Luke  xxiv.  39,  seq.  does  not  satisfy,  the  fact  that  the 
feet,  also,  were  nailed  in  crucifixion,  may  certainly  be  regarded 
as  placed  beyond  all  doubt  by  the  investigations  of  llug  and 
Biihr. 

V.  26-29.  On  the  eighth  day  of  the  week  of  the  feast,  (the 
feast  days  ma}"  be  reckoned  as  seven  and  as  eight,)  we  again 
find  the  Apostles  together,  probably  shortly  before  their  depart- 
ure from  Jerusalem.  ^Eaco  seems  to  intimate  that  they  usually 
met  in  one  and  the  same  place.  Our  Saviour's  language  to 
Thomas,  which  seems  to  give  proof  of  an  extraordinary  know- 
ledge, testifies  of  his  disapprobation,  yet  he  kindly  complies, 
at  the  same  time,  with  the  demands  of  this  extreme  doubt. 
But  the  mere  appearing  and  word  of  the  risen  Saviour  arrest  the 
doubting  Disciple  in  his  inmost  soul,  so  that  he  omits  the  appli- 
cation of  the  very  test  he  had  d^sired,^  and  breaks  forth  with  an 
intensity  of  exclamation,  which  is  to  be  regarded  not  as  the 
result  of  the  momentary  impression,  but  as  the  exponent  of  all 
the  impressions  cherished  in  the  preceding  period.  The  elzev 
aurw,  "said  unto  him,"  shows  that  his  expression  was  addressed 
to  the  Saviour,  and  was  not,  as  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia  and 
Dr.  Paulus  understand  it,  a  mere  exclamation  of  amazement. 
To  avoid  misapprehending  the  answer  of  our  Lord,  we  must 

1  The  words  Sn  eupoKur  fxe,  "  because  thou  hast  seen  me,"  show  that  Thomas  did 
not  place  hit  hands  upon  Christ 


418  Chap.  XX.— v.  30,  31. 

bear  in  mind,  that  what  he  says  is  meant  only  to  have  ref- 
erence to  the  domain  of  religion,  but  it  is  essential  to  re- 
ligious faith,  in  antithesis  to  the  outer  world,  to  hold  fast 
to  that  which  is  invisible,  Ttafj  k)j:ida  kn  i?,7rcdc,  "against 
hope  in  hope,"  Rom.  iv.  18 ;  the  language  here,  indeed,  per- 
tains to  a  historic  fact  lying  in  the  sphere  of  the  senses, 
but,  as  De  Wette  very  truly  remarks,  this  fact  has  a  truth  con- 
nected with  it  pertaining  to  the  sphere  of  ideas,  (xiv.  18,  seq. 
xvi.  21,)  and  the  recognition  of  that  truth  inclines  the  mind  to 
the  reception  of  the  historical  fact.  Had  the  later  times  which 
follow  Christ's  departure  from  our  earth,  been,  like  Thomas, 
willing,  only  on  the  evidence  of  the  senses,  to  believe  in  him 
who  had  risen  from  the  dead,  the  Christian  Church  could  have 
no  existence. — As  the  Evangelist  closes  his  Gospel  with  these 
words  of  our  Lord,  he  insists  upon  the  basis  of  them,  as  it  were, 
that  his  readers  should  confide  in  the  testimony  here  given,  and 
thus  V.  30,  31  are  attached  to  the  close.  The  aorists  loovzeQ 
and  ■Kcareuaavrtt;  are  to  be  explained  by  the  use  of  the  aorist  in 
general  propositions  and  proverbs,  as  in  James  i.  11,  24,  Luke 
i.  52. 

V.  30,  31.  There  are  two  w^ays  in  which  these  closing  words 
may  be  construed.  The  majority  refer  rwjza  to  arjiizta,  and  con- 
nect V.  30,  31  very  closely  :  "  Jesus  truly  had  done  —  but  these 
arjixtta"  &c.  Mhv  ouu  may,  however,  as  in  some  other  places,  be 
used  as  a  formula  of  closing,  (Luke  iii.  18,  Acts  v.  41,)  where 
w^e  would  use  "but  yet,"  and  then  the  verses  are  more  com- 
pletely separated,  and  zauTo.  is  equivalent  to  r.  ^ii9L  zouzo.  The 
meaning  of  arnitla  will  be  determined  by  the  one  or  the  other 
of  these  constructions.  We  can  hardly,  in  accordance  with 
John's  usage  elsewhere,  (ix.  16,  x.  41,  xi.  47,)  apply  the  expres- 
sion ariixzla  nocsTu  to  any  thing  except  the  miracles  of  Christ. 
Yet  the  first  construction  seems  to  force  us  to  understand  by 
(T7]fjis7a,  the  miraculous  appearings  of  the  Saviour  after  his 
resurrection,  which  indeed  are  called  xvifx^pca,  "  proofs,"  Acts  i. 
3.  This  view  is  confirmed  by  John's  language  :  "in  the  pres- 
ence of  his  Disciples,"  iucoTziou  zoJv  fxad-rjzoiv  aiSroD,  while  the 
miracles  were  performed  before  all  the  people,  (Luke  xxiv.  19.) 
This  view  is  the  one  held  by  Chrysostom,  Euthymius,  Maldo- 


Christ  appears  to  Thomas  and  the  other  Disciples.   419 

natus,»  Seraler,  Olshausen,  Liicke,  and  many  others.  It  is  a 
view,  however,  which  we  cannot  adopt.  First  of  all  is  opposed 
to  it,  that  the  text  does  not  express  the  "  auch"  (also)  which 
Luther  adds,  and  which  we  would  naturally  expect,  "  also  many 
other  things;"  it  does  not  read  as  in  xxi.  25,  xal  dUa  zo/M,  but 
we  have  merely  the  increasing  xac,  which  is  not  expressed  in 
German,  (Kiihner,  ii.  422.)  (In  English,  "and  indeed,  and 
truly.")  The  proposition,  consequently,  is  not  connected  with 
what  precedes.  Further,  we  ask,  could  John  have  known  of 
?nan7/  other  appearings  of  Christ  after  the  resurrection  ?  In  ch. 
xxi.  14,  he  speaks  of  a  third  appearing  only,  which  took  place 
before  all  the  Disciples.  Again,  how  could  he  have  been  led  to 
use  (Tr^fis7a  ttoisTv  in  speaking  of  miraculous  appearings?  Final- 
ly, does  not  the  expression  iv  r.  j^ej^L  r.,  "in  this  book,"  show 
that  he  had  the  entire  book  in  his  eye  ?  in  which  case  it  is  not 
credible  that  here  at  the  close  of  his  entire  work  he  meant  only 
to  speak  of  the  last  things  narrated  in  it,  and  on  them  especial- 
ly to  establish  the  faith  and  life  of  the  Church.  It  is  no  doubt 
possible  that  raWa  refers  to  the  miracles  narrated  in  the  earlier 
parts  of  the  Gospel,  in  which  case  the  first  construction  may  be 
retained,  without  deviating  from  the  ordinary  meaning  of 
ffrj/is7a  Ttocv.v.  Xor  will  it  be  thought  incredible,  after  compar- 
ing ch.  xii.  37,  that  he  meant  to  furnish  a  ground  for  fiiith,  in 
the  miracles  he  has  detailed.  On  the  other  hand,  if  the  second 
construction  be  followed,  (cf.  what  Beza  already  notices  in  regard 
to  fteuo'ju,)  then  raiJTa  covers  the  entire  contents  of  the  Gospel, 
exactly  as  in  xxi.  24,  and  the  observation,  v.  30,  forms  so  much 
more  natural  a  close,  as  John  is  the  very  Evangelist  who  has 
narrated  but  few  ar^fisia.  The  fact  that  he  has  written :  ivwzcou 
Twu  fia^r^zcov,  "in  the  presence  of  his  Disciples,"  we  explain  by 
supposing  that  he  here  names  the  fia^r^rac,  "Disciples,"  as  the 
witnesses,  through  the  medium  of  whom  the  faith  of  the  Church 
arose,  that  very  faith  which  the  Evangelist  designed  by  this 
Gospel  to  exalt.  Besides,  the  /m^r^zac,  "Disciples,"  were  al- 
ways the  most  immediate  witnesses  of  the  miracles,  cf.  vii.  3. 

1  Maldonatus  urges  that  mode  of  understanding  it,  as  a  proof  that  John  did  not 
close  his  Gospel  here,  but  only  the  materials  iu  regard  to  the  first  manifostations 
after  the  resurrection ;  so,  too,  Heumann. 


CHAPTER   XXI. 


"With  the  close  of  ch.  xx.  the  Gospel  was  closed.  We  have 
now  an  appendix,  which  hears  throughout  the  characteristics 
of  John's  spirit  aud  style,  and  which  closes  with  a  testimony 
from  some  other  haud.  Supplements  like  this  are  found,  also, 
in  the  historians,  as  for  example,  in  Nepos'  Life  of  Atticus. 
But  the  recent  and  most  recent  criticism  judges  in  a  wholly 
different  way  in  regard  to  this  chapter.  The  opponents  of  the 
genuineness  of  John's  Gospel  have  made  this  appendix,  and 
especially  its  closing  verses,  a  point  from  which  they  have 
proceeded  to  contest  the  authenticity  of  the  Gospel  itself.  Of. 
the  Introduction,  §  6.  But  we  see  that  those,  also,  who  have 
defended  the  genuineness  of  the  Gospel,  unite,  with  hardly  an 
exception,  in  the  judgment  that  this  chapter  is  not  genuine,  as 
for  example  Credner,  Liicke,  Neander,  De  Wette  aud  Schwei- 
zer ;  of  recent  writers,  only  Meyer,  Olshausen  and  Guericke,  can 
be  mentioned  on  the  other  side.  Liicke  thinks  that  "the  entire 
chapter,  as  respects  language,  delineation  and  matter,  presents 
the  most  singular  phenomena,"  (ii.  p.  805,)  "the  style  of 
thought,  the  language,  the  mode  of  recital  throughout  the  chap- 
ter, betray  an  author  wholly  different  from  the  Evangelist,"  (p. 
825.)  To  the  exaggeration  in  this  judgment — which  in  Schwei- 
zer,  p.  120,  seq.,  goes  almost  even  further  —  we  would  put  a 
limitation  by  the  declaration  of  Credner,  who  has  applied  him- 
self with  special  diligence  to  the  investigation  of  the  peculiari- 
ties of  the  I:^ew  Testament  style :  (Einleit.  ins  IT.  Test.  i.  1, 
p.  232,)  "There  is  not  a  single  external  testimony  against  the 
21st  chapter,  and  regarded  internally,  this  chapter  displays  almost 
all  the  peculiarities  of  John's  style."  The  differences  of  style 
are  in  fact  so  inconsiderable,  that  they  can  hardly  be  regarded 
as  having  weight  in  the  face  of  the  numerous  coincidences  \dth 

(420) 


Genuineness  of  the  Chapter.  421 

John,  which  Gucricko,  (in  his  Introduction,  p.  310,)  following 
Credner,  has  gathered  together.  Now,  this  liarmouy  with  John, 
in  point  of  style,  furnishes  at  once  a  very  strong  proof  of  the 
genuineness  of  this  chapter,  for  if  it  were  designed,  (and  unde- 
signed it  could  not  be,)  where  does  there  exist  in  the  ancient 
Church  an  example  of  a  faharius  making  so  happy  a  counter- 
feit? We  cite  the  words  in  which  Liicke  states  what  he  has  to 
confirm  his  doubt :  (with  which  cf.  Schweizer,  p.  57,)  "  The 
authenticity  of  this  chapter  stands  or  falls  with  the  originality 
of  the  last  two  verses ;  these  in  structure  and  in  contents  cohere 
closely  with  the  preceding  ones.  On  the  other  side,  as  the 
point  of  view  from  v.  1  to  14  is  abandoned  at  v.  15,  the  appen- 
dix requires  some  sort  of  a  conclusion,  v.  24  at  least.  The 
wi'iter  of  v.  24  also  wrote  what  precedes  it.  And,  as  there 
is  no  reason  for  separating  v.  24  from  v.  25,  as  on  the  contrary 
the  latter  verse  corresponds  closely  with  the  hyperbolical  tone 
of  narration  in  v.  11,  it  follows  that  if  v.  24  and  25  were  not 
written  by  John,  neither  is  he  the  author  of  verses  1-23."  In 
addition  to  this  :  "  If  v.  23  presupposes  the  death  of  the  Evan- 
gelist, there  can  no  longer  be  a  dispute  as  to  the  author ;  if 
John  himself  had  written  the  sentence,  there  would  have  been 
a  much  more  natural  way  of  correcting  'the  saying,'  ^.oyo^, 
than  by  emphasizing  the  conditionating  '  if  I  will,'  kau  ^iho." 
Schweizer  finds  in  these  last  words  "  a  verbal  trifling  unworthy 
of  the  Evangelist."  We  enter,  first  of  all,  our  most  decided 
protest  against  this  imputation  of  a  verbal  trifling,  and  ask, 
whether  the  child-like  tone  of  John's  mind  does  not  reveal  itself 
in  the  very  fact  that  he  clings  in  perfect  simplicity  to  the  words 
of  his  Master,  and  repels  an  inference  which,  however  flattering, 
was  yet  unsure  ?  We  are  inclined  to  think  that  the  occasion 
for  this  appendix  was  furnished  by  the  saying  that  was  in  cur- 
rency about  him,  that  he  would  not  die.  A  lowly,  child-like 
man  would  be  the  very  one  to  feel  a  hearty  desire  to  repel  an 
expectation  of  that  sort,  and  it  is  our  opinion,  that  partly  to 
give  a  vivid  picture  of  the  circumstances  under  which  this  last 
expression  was  uttered  by  our  Lord,  partly  to  link  it  with  the 
appearings  after  his  resurrection,  which  liad  been  previously 
detailed,  he  gives  the  complete  account  of  this  delightful  inter- 
view in  Galilee.     K  this  be  the  occasion  of  the  appendix,  and 

2o  37 


422  Chap.  XXL  — v.  1-17. 

if  this  chapter  be  hut  an  appendix,  we  are  at  a  loss  to  know  how 
Dr.  Liicke  can,  with  justice,  insist  that  the  Evangelist  must  yet 
have  added  a  closing  word.  The  Evangelist  had,  in  fact,  already 
closed,  ch.  xx.  30,  31.  The  necessity,  therefore,  is  by  no  means 
clear,  "  that  the  author  of  v.  24  must  have  also  written  what 
precedes  it."  If  it  be  further  affirmed,  that  the  hyperbole  in 
V.  25  corresponds  with  that  in  v.  11,  we  do  not  apprehend  that 
any  such  correspondence  exists,  for  while  in  v.  25  every  one 
acknowledges  a  hyperbole,  we  cannot  comprehend  why  the 
number  of  the  fishes,  one  hundred  and  fifty-three,  must  be,  not 
historical,  but  hyperbolical.  We  believe  that  with  far  better 
conscience  the  question  may  be  started :  Is  it  credible  that  the 
same  pen  which  wrote  v.  25  could  have  written  that  simple 
narrative  which  is  found  in  this  chapter  ? — There  are  no  doc- 
trinal interests  for  whose  sake  an  esirnest  defense  of  John's 
authorship  in  this  last  chapter  is  necessary ;  if,  with  Neander 
and  Liicke,  the  view  is  held,  that  the  account  flowed  from  the 
oral  tradition  of  the  Evangelist,  it  amounts  to  the  same  thing. 
But  the  unprejudiced  testing  of  the  points  involved  in  criticism, 
compels  us,  as  regards  the  authorship  of  this  chapter,  to  difier 
from  the  highly  esteemed  expositors  we  have  just  mentioned.^ 

Jesus  appears  in  Galilee. — Miraculous  draught  of  Fishes. 

V.  1-14. 

V.  1-3.  After  the  festival  had  ended,  the  Disciples  had 
returned  to  Galilee,  where,  in  the  brief  interval  which  yet  remain- 
ed until  Pentecost,  they  stayed  and  again  pursued  their  calling. 
The  expresssion  (pauspouu  iaorou,  "he  showed  himself,"  implies 
that  there  was  in  his  appearing  something  wonderful,  (Mark  xvi. 
12.)  'EttI  t.  ^aX.,  "  on  the  shore  of  the  sea,"  that  is,  "  at  the 
sea,"  cf.  on  vi.  19.  They  had  cast  their  nets  during  the  night, 
as  at  this  time,  as  Aristotle  already  mentions,  fishing  could  be 
conducted  to  the  best  advantage.  On  Nathaniel,  see  above  on 
i.  52. 

V.  4-8.  The  question  of  Jesus  implies  a  design  on  his  part 
of  taking  a  meal  in  company  with  his  Disciples,  (v.  12.)     The 

1  The  literature  of  the  earlier  controversial  writings  on  this  point,  is  specially 
designated  in  Lticke,  ii.  p.  824. 


Conversation  of  Christ  with  Peter.  423 

Disciples  may,  however,  have  taken  him  for  a  stranger,  desiring 
to  purchase  food  for  his  breakfast.  The  Disciple  who  loved  the 
Lord  is  distinguished  by  a  profounder  sympathy,  in  virtue  of 
which  he  at  once,  partly  by  the  miracle,  partly  by  his  form  and 
voice,  recognizes  him.  Peter,  on  the  other  hand,  here  also  is 
the  swifter  of  the  two  in  forming  a  resolution,  /u/^wc,  as  is 
well  known,  does  not  always  designate  a  complete  nakedness, 
yet  we  may  suppose  that  Peter  had  on  nothing  besides  the  sub- 
ligaculum,  of  which  mention  has  been  made  on  xx.  15.  As  to 
the  iTTsvd'jTT^::,  Euthymius  speaks  of  a  light  garment  without 
sleeves  and  coming  only  to  the  knee,  and  which  we  should 
probably  fancy  as  narrow,  like  a  kind  of  shirt,  which  he  says 
was  in  common  use  by  fishermen;  Theophylact  speaks  of  a 
light  garment  which  the  fishermen  either  wore  over  the  other 
clothes,  or  next  to  the  skin.  The  raiment  mentioned  by 
Euthymius  would  at  least  have  been  a  hindrance  in  swimming, 
and  dtt^coaaro  may  then  be  translated,  either  "he  girded  up," 
or  "he  girded  around  him." — Tw  Tzlocapico  is  the  dat.  instr. 

Y.  9-14.  How  the  fire  of  coals  and  the  food  had  been  pre- 
pared is  not  clear,  for  they  could  not  have  been  got  ready  by 
Peter  in  such  haste.  There  is  nothing  improbable  in  the  state- 
ment, that  the  Disciples,  astonished  at  the  large  number  of  fishes 
taken,  counted  them,  and  just  as  little  in  the  fact  that  the  num- 
ber impressed  itself  on  their  memory. — The  recent  writers  regard 
the  tenor  of  v.  12  as  strange  and  obscure,  but  what  else  can  be 
the  intention  of  the  Evangelist  than  this,  that  the  Disciples,  far 
from  the  familiarity  which  had  been  their  wont,  refrained  from 
expressing  the  joy  they  felt  at  beholding  their  Lord  again? 
How  natural  is  this  in  the  position  in  which  the  Lord  places 
himself  to  them  after  his  resurrection,  and  how  artlessly  is  it 
expressed  by  the  Evangelist ! — The  appearing  to  the  women  is 
not  included  in  v.  14,  but  merely  the  two  appearings  in  the 
circle  of  the  Disciples,  mentioned  in  ch.  xx. 

Conversation  of  Christ  with  Peter. — v.  15-23 

V.  15-17.  They  are  still  sitting  at  the  meal,  which,  to  draw 
an  inference  from  v.  12,  had  been  passed  through  more  silently 
than  usual.     The  reproving  look  which  the  Redeemer  had  cast 


424  Chap.  XXI. —v.  18,  19. 

on  Peter  after  his  denial,  (Luke  xxii.  61,)  was  still  burning  in 
his  soul;  he  was  deposed  as  it  were  from  his  earlier  official 
dignity,  and  must  be  restored  to  it  again.^  The  mode  in  which 
this  is  done,  is  one  so  full  of  spirit,  so  far  beyond  the  reach  of 
invention,  that  any  presumption  of  a  mere  fiction  in  the  case  is 
put  to  the  blush:  Love  to  Christ  is  the  grand  essential  for  feeding 
his  flocJc.  "With  the  threefold  denial  corresponds  the  triple 
hammer-stroke  of  this  question  on  the  heart  of  Peter.  The 
first  question  is  a  remembrancer  to  him  of  his  language,  when 
he  was  guilty  of  the  assumption  of  ascribing  to  himself  a  love 
stronger  than  that  of  all  the  rest,  (Matt.  xxvi.  33.)  The  words, 
"Simon,  son  of  Jonas,"  with  which  Christ  addresses  him,  have 
a  character  of  solemnity,  (Matt.  xvi.  17.)  In  his  reply  the 
Disciple  no  longer  ventures  to  glance  aside  at  the  rest ;  yet  far 
from  a  sickly  humility,  he  has  the  courage,  despite  his  confusion, 
to  reply  affirmatively,  and  to  appeal  to  the  witness  of  Him,  in 
whose  power  to  search  the  depths  of  the  heart  he  had  confidence. 
The  questions  which  follow  and  which  pierce  yet  more  deeply, 
drop  the  allusion  to  the  other  Disciples.  Dbaxecv  and  Tzoi/jiaiveiv, 
Tcpo^ara  and  dppca  (Matt.  x.  16,  Luke  x.  3,)  are  synonymous, 
the  diminutive  dpviov  had,  like  ajziov,  lost  its  diminutive  signi- 
fication, (see  xviii.  26 ;)  (pdzcv  and  dyaTcav  have  here  the  same 
meaning,  (see  xi.  5.)  The  object  of  the  humiliation  is  sufficiently 
attained  at  the  third  question,  but  the  Disciple,  despite  his  grief, 
cannot  refuse  to  do  justice  to  the  assurance  of  his  own  self- 
consciousness.  The  conviction  ah  :vdvTa  o7da^,  "thou  knowest 
all  things,"  might  be  deduced  from  experiences  like  that  in 
Matt.  xvii.  27.  The  argument  for  the  primacy  of  Peter,  is  in  a 
forlorn  condition  if  the  defenders  of  it  are  compelled  to  attach  to 
this  passage  the  importance  that  Maldonatus  does:  Qusero,  cui 
universa  ilia  (ecclesise)  cura,  nisi  Petro,  qusero  ubi,  nisi  hie, 
commissa  sit?  "I  ask,  to  whom, was  that  entire  care  of  the 
Church  committed  except  to  Peter,  I  ask,  where  but  here  was 
it  committed  to  him?"^ 

1  Zwingle :  Petrus  de  novo  quasi  inauguratur  apostolico  muneri  ex  Christi  gratia, 
a  quo  negando  culpa  sua  merito  exciderat,  ut  superabundet  gratia,  ubi  delictum 
abundaverat,  "Peter  is  inaugurated,  as  it  were,  anew  into  the  Apostolic  oflBce,  by 
the  grace  of  Christ,  (from  which  at  his  denial  his  own  fault  had  deservedly  cut  him 
off,)  that  where  sin  had  abounded,  grace  might  much  more  abound." 

2  He  sustains  himself  especially  by  the  argument,  that  in  the  general  expression, 
'  my  sheep,"  the  other  Apostles  must  be  included. 


Conversation  of  Christ  with  Peter.  425 

V.  18, 19.  An  intiraation  of  the  serious  trial  the  office  would 
bring  with  it ;  what  our  Lord,  ch.  xiii.  36,  had  already  intima- 
ted to  the  Disciples,  he  liere  repeats  in  an  expression,  which 
after  the  style  of  the  prophetic  expressions,  has  a  figurative 
character,  and  presents  the  future,  but  with  a  veil  over  it.  We 
assume  that  the  expUination  John  gives  in  v.  19,  with  which  cf. 
xii.  33,  xviii.  32,  is  the  correct  one ;  the  expression  oo^d^ecv  r. 
I?,  for  the  death  by  martyrdom,  is  in  keeping  with  the  partiality 
which  John  has  all  along  shown  for  the  idea  involved  in 
do^d^eiu. — V.  18  presupposes  that  Peter  was  no  longer  a  young 
man  —  we  know  that  when  he  came  to  Christ  he  was  already 
married  ;  it  is  also  presupposed  that  he  would  reach  old  age  — 
he  actually  labored  for  more  than  thirty  years  after.  The  most 
obvious  sense  offered  by  the  sentence,  is  that  first  given  by 
Fikenscher:  "In  thy  youth  thou  didst  dispose  of  thyself  at 
thine  own  pleasure,  with  thine  advancing  years  thou  shalt  be 
more  and  more  dependent  on  another,  who  will  gird  thee  and 
do  with  thee  as  he  pleases."  Olshausen  interprets  in  a  similar 
way:  "In  the  vigorous  fullness  of  thy  youthful  strength  thou 
hast  done  as  it  pleased  thee,  in  thine  old  age  this  vivacious 
spirit  shall  be  broken."  To  adopt  this  idea  and  yet  allow  the 
claims  of  John's  interpretation,  would  require  us  to  say,  that  in 
the  crucifixion  of  Peter  the  language  of  our  Lord  was  verified 
in  a  higher  and  more  definite  sense.  "We  approach  more  clearly 
to  the  meaning  John  gives,  when  we  regard  the  girding  in  old 
age  simply  as  a  figurative  prophetic  designation  of  binding,  as 
in  Acts  xxi.  11,  (Beza,  Calvin,  Heumann,  Meyer.)  'Extscvcd 
would  then  mean  "to  stretch  out,"  and  would  refer  to  the 
fettering  or  binding  of  the  hands,  and  ol'asi  to  the  leading  away 
to  execution.  But  persons  sentenced  to  be  crucified,  at  least 
when  they  were  compelled  to  carry  their  cross,  could  not  well 
have  been  led  to  execution  with  their  hands  bound ;  but 
ixzecveiv  can  also  refer  to  the  spreading  out  of  the  hands,  and 
certainly  if  John  did  not  give  it  this  interpretation  then  a 
reference  to  the  manner  of  death  cannot  be  found  in  the 
expression.  The  most  probable  view  will  always  be  that  John 
discovered  in  the  words  ixzevd'-  r/ic  X'^f"^^^^  ^^^^  distinct  allusion 
to  crucifixion.  In  this  case,  however,  the  otazc  xtX.  seems  to 
make   a   hysteron-proteron,   which  has   been  obviated  in  au 


426  Chap.  XXL  — v.  20-23. 

inadmissible  way,  by  Casaubon,  when  he  refers  the  words 
ixrevsTc  —  ^coatc,  "thou  shalt  stretch  forth  thy  hands  and 
another  shall  gird  thee,"  to  the  Roman  custom  of  stretching  on 
the  furca  and  carrying  it  about,  and  by  Bengel,  according  to 
whom  the  tying  to  the  cross  and  the  nailing  respectively  took 
place  before  the  cross  was  set  up.  The  hysteron-proteron  must 
be  acknowledged,  but  may  be  defended  on  the  ground  that  the 
words  izreveTc  tck;  yzipdz-)  "thou  shalt  stretch  forth  thy  hands," 
present  the  main  idea,  and  the  words  "  shall  gird  thee,"  {roi<T£r 
<r£,  may  be  understood  of  the  binding  with  the  subligaculum,i 
(see  on  xx.  15.)  As  regards  the  testimonies  in  Church  history 
w^th  reference  to  the  close  of  the  life  of  this  Disciple,  it  will  be 
sufficient  to  cite  Hase :  (Church  History,  §  58,)  "  According  to 
the  witnesses  since  the  middle  of  the  second  century,  who  are 
not  indeed  perfectly  good  authority,  yet  are  independent  of 
Romish  influence,  he  was  crucified  at  Rome."  His  martyrdom 
in  Rome  is  firmly  established,  the  specific  death  of  crucifixion 
is  mentioned  by  Tertullian  and  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccles.  iii.  1. — 
Great  difficulty  has  been  felt  in  the  exposition  of  the  words, 
dxoXo'j&zc  jjLoc^  "follow  me,"  as  it  would  seem  especially  when 
we  refer  to  xiii.  36,  as  though  it  must  be  understood  of  follow- 
ing in  the  death  of  martyrdom  ;  yet  we  find  ourselves  compelled 
b}^  the  axo}ouf^o~jy~a,  v.  20,  to  take  in  its  literal  sense,  the  follow- 
ing spoken  of.  In  our  judgment,  the  preceding  conversation 
(cf.  zo'jTcov,  v.  15,)  took  place  in  the  presence  of  the  Disciples. 
Jesus  now  rose,  in  order  to  speak  aside  with  Peter,  whom  he 
commands  to  follow  him. 

V.  20-23.  Whether  from  curiosity  or  the  sympathy  of 
attachment,  John  feels  urged  to  follow  them.  He  designates 
himself  here,  not  merely  as  the  Disciple  ov  -l^yajza.  b  V^o-oiic, 
"whom  Jesus  loved,"  but  by  referring  to  a  particular  circum- 
stance, in  which  his  intimate  relation  to  our  Lord  was  specially 
displayed.  This  fuller  designation  is  not,  indeed,  merely 
designed  to  render  the  words  "  whom  Jesus  loved,"  more  clear, 
but  rather  serves  to  intimate  how  Peter  found  occasion  for  the 
question,  v.  21.     Peter  had  understood  that  serious  and  painful 

1  In  the  Evang.  Nicod.  c.  x.  p.  582,  ed.  Tliilo,  in  narrating  the  crucifixion,  are  these 

■words:  t^edvaav  t. 'Irjaoiiv  -d  i/iuria  avTov,  Kal  izEpie^uaav  avrov  ^.evtcg),  "they 
removed  from  Jesus  his  garments,  and  girded  him  (TrepiEfwffdv)  with  a  cloth." 

3G* 


Conversation  of  Christ  with  Peter.  427 

trials  awaited  himself,  and  there  now  rises  in  his  mind  the 
desire,  not  wholly  a  pure  one,  of  knowing  whether  a  like  des- 
tiny awaited  that  Disciple  who  had  been  in  such  intimate 
confidence.  The  reply  of  our  Lord  is,  therefore,  severe,  and 
dismisses  Peter's  question.'  In  a  similar  spirit  to  that  in  which 
Paul,  Gal.  vi.  4,  says;  ro  ipjov  laoro'j  ooxcua^izio  Ixaaro:;,  "let 
every  man  prove  his  own  work,"  our  Lord  wishes  that  all 
glancing  to  one  side  or  the  other  should  cease,  and  that  the 
Disciple,  in  rigid  earnestness,  should  keep  before  his  eye  his 
own  calling  alone.  "WTien  Christ  himself,  in  the  Gospel,  speaks 
of  his  coming,  the  expression  embraces  also  all  his  manifesta- 
tions in  the  course  of  history,  (Mark  ix.  1,  Matt.  xxvi.  63,)  but 
in  the  language  of  the  Apostles,  the  coming  of  the  Lord  desig- 
nates his  last  coming  to  judge  the  world,  as  the  close  of  all  the 
judgments  which  take  place  in  the  lapse  of  time,  (Rev.  ii.  5, 
iii.  11.)  The  childlike  Disciple  will  not  alluw  that  interpreta- 
tion of  the  words  which  is  most  glorious  for  himself,  to  pass,  he 
simply  abides  by  the  conditional  "  if  I  will."  Should  he  remain 
alive  until  the  consummation  of  the  kingdom  of  God  and  the 
resurrection  of  the  dead,  he  would  wholly  escape  death,  for 
which  would  be  exchanged  that  metamorphosis  of  which  Paul 
speaks,  (1  Thess.  iv.  17,  1  Cor.  xv.  51.)  "This  saying"  was 
nut,  however,  entirely  suppressed  even  by  this  authentic  con- 
tradiction. Augustine  narrates  the  legend,  that  while  yet 
living,  the  Disciple  had  caused  a  grave  to  be  dug,  into  which 
he  had  descended,  and  apparently  expired,  though  in  fact  his 
death  was  only  a  slumber,  for  the  earth  which  covered  him  still 
moved  lightly  as  he  breathed.  In  the  Greek  Church  this 
legend  was  embellished  in  various  ways,  and  was  yet  extant  in 
the  period  of  the  Byzautine  historians,  (John  Miiller's  Works, 
vol.  vi.  p.  74,  82.)  The  English  sect  of  "  Seekers,"  under 
Cromwell,  expected  the  reappearance  of  the  Apostle  as  the 
forerunner  of  the  return  of  Christ. 

1  The  posture  of  matters  is  apprehended  by  Chrysostom  in  a  different  way.  The 
fuller  designation  "who  also  leaned  on  his  breast,  &c."  is  designed,  he  thinks,  to 
give  prominence  to  the  confidence  which  Peter  had  now  (>ttaiued,  so  that  he  who 
formerly  had  directed  to  our  Lord,  through  John,  a  question  relating  to  Judas,  now 
himself  interrogntes  the  Lord  —  and  about  John  1  The  question  of  Peter  is  a  ques- 
tion of  sympathizing  lore ;  he  is  not  willing  to  be  separated  from  his  friend. 


428  Chap.  XXL  — v.  24,  25. 


Supplementary  Testimony. — v.  24,  25. 

V.  24,  25.  "We  have  already  in  the  Introduction,  §  6,  ex- 
pressed ourselves  at  large  in  regard  to  the  character  and  object 
of  this  testimony,  which  has  such  importance  on  the  question 
regarding  the  authenticity  of  this  Gospel.  "We  offer  here  but 
a  remark  in  regard  to  the  singular.  Olda/iev,  as  it  is  followed 
by  olfiac,  leaves  it  in  doubt  whether  a  single  individual  is  speak- 
ing of  himself.  In  the  Greek  epistolary  style,  the  singular 
and  plural  interchange,  but  does  this  take  place  in  the  historical 
style?  It  is  more  probable  that  an  individual  speaks  in  the 
name  of  a  number  of  persons.  ''Oaa,  (Lachmann,  3)  "  all  which," 
almost  relative.  Kad^'  ev,  one  after  the  other  without  omission. 
Auzbv  zbv  xoanov,  the  world  itself,  great  as  it  is.  The  infinitive 
aorist  instead  of  the  future  after  the  verb  to  believe,  as  well  as 
after  the  verbs  to  hope,  to  wish,  Winer,  p.  306,  Agnew  and 
Ebbeke's  transl.  p.  261. 


SUPPLEMENT. 


"While  this  Commentary  (the  German  original  of  the  6th  edi- 
tion,) was  passing  through  the  press,  two  works  on  this  Gospel, 
deserving  of  notice,  made  their  appearance :  The  Commentary 
of  Baumgarten-Crusius,  1st  vol.,  1st  divis.,  (ch.  1-8,)  Jena,  1843  ; 
and  Kostlin's  Lehrhegriff — Doctrinal  System  of  the  Gospel 
and  Epistles  of  John,  as  also  the  related  New  Testament 
Systems.     Berlin,  1843. 

The  work  of  the  Jena  theologian,  now  deceased,  presents  in 
the  text,  for  the  most  part,  only  the  interpretation  peculiar  to 
the  author,  and  indicates  tlie  interpretations  of  others,  (chiefly 
in  notes,)  with  greater  brevity  than  we  find  in  Liicke.  It  may 
claim  the  merit  of  an  independent  exposition  which  enters  into 
the  spirit  of  the  Gospel.  The  position  which  the  author,  who  did 
not  belong  decidedlj^  to  any  of  the  present  theological  schools, 
takes  as  regards  the  question  about  the  genuineness  and 
authenticity  of  this  Gospel,  is  deserving  of  notice.  With 
freedom,  firmness,  and  historical  tact,  he  presents  briefly  the 
reasons  why  its  genuineness  must  be  acknowledged ;  and,  as 
regards  the  authenticity  of  the  facts,  he  adheres  firmly,  in  a 
general  way,  to  those  views  which  the  extreme  criticism  of  our 
day  hoped  to  render  antiquated,  by  imposing  on  them  the  name 
of  "  antiquated  systems  of  harmonistics  and  of  apologetics ;" 
only  as  regards  miracles  the  lamented  author  takes  a  negative, 
but  exceedingly  obscure,  position.  lie  defends  the  originality 
of  the  discourses  of  the  Kedeemer  in  John,  though  he  will  not 
deny  the  influence  of  the  hand  that  committed  them  to  writing. 
"We  shall  merel}-  touch  here  on  what  he  says  in  regard  to  the 
doctrine  of  the  Logos.  This  doctrine,  according  to  the  view 
of  the  author,  cannot  be  regarded  as  a  gradually  heightened 

(429) 


430  Supplement. 

hypostatizing  of  the  Old  Testament  doctrine  of  the  Word  and 
Wisdom  of  God.  It  is  rather  in  Judaism  an  exotic  growth, 
devised  in  Alexandria  with  the  design  of  forming  a  connecting 
link  with  the  Grecian  philosophy.  "  The  probability  is  against 
the  idea  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Logos  had  found  an  introduc- 
tion and  obtained  weight  among  Jews  and  Christians  out  of 
Alexandria,  at  the  time  the  prologue  to  John's  Gospel  was  com- 
posed." Only  individuals  had  introduced  it  into  the  immediate 
circles  of  the  Evangelists;  Apollos,  perhaps,  was  one  of  these. 
John  has  not  made  it  the  subject  of  any  speculations  of  his 
own,  but  has  merely  adopted  it  to  secure  an  expression  corres- 
ponding with  his  exalted  opinion  in  regard  to  Christ. 

The  author  of  the  new  "  System  of  John,"  which  originally 
appeared  in  Tiibingen  as  a  prize  dissertation,  takes,  as  a  basis, 
the  views  of  Dr.  Baur  and  Schwegler.  The  Gospel  had  its 
origin  in  the  second  century,  and  was  composed  with  the 
irenico-apologetic  object  of  harmonizing  the  conflicting  parties 
in  the  Christian  community.  Throughout  the  discourses  of 
Christ,  and  even  through  John  the  Baptist  as  an  organ,  none 
other  than  the  unknown  Evangelist  himself  speaks  in  this  Gos- 
pel. From  the  basis  of  Judaism  he  has  completely  sundered 
himself.  The  fundamental  idea  of  his  book  is  to  be  found  in 
the  thought  that  Christianity  is  the  absolute  religion.  This 
absolute  religion  has  appeared  personally  in  the  incarnate 
"Logos,"  with  whom,  for  the  first  time,  light  and  life  have 
been  imparted  to  the  world,  so  that  out  of  him  is  nothing  but 
death  and  darkness.  The  author  claims  that  by  his  labor,  con- 
sidered as  an  objective  historical  exhibition,  he  has  lifted  himself 
far  above  the  position  occupied  by  Frommann,  but  his  claim 
cannot  be  allowed,  unless  the  presumption  may  be  justified 
that  the  view  taken  by  Dr.  Baur  of  the  history  of  doctrines  in 
the  first  and  second  centuries,  is  the  only  one  historically  estab- 
lished. 


APPENDIX   FIRST. 


I. 

from  the  seventh  edition.   introduction,  i  2. 

The  Author's  witness  of  himself. 

On  two  occasions  has  the  Evangelist  pointed  directly  to  him- 
self as  a  witness  of  the  ev^ents  which  he  relates,  i.  14,  xix.  35  ; 
on  a  third,  xxi.  24,  Disciples  testify  of  him  the  same  thing.  la 
those  passages  where  he  introduces  a  Disciple  without  naming 
him,  with  the  predicate  ov  Itpihc  6  V:y<ToDc,  he  points  indirectly 
to  his  own  person.  From  the  following  it  appears  clearly  that 
the  Apostle  John  is  understood:  in  ch.  xiii.  25,  the  one  to 
whom  that  honorable  predicate  just  mentioned  is  given,  is 
called  6  duaxsiftsuo^  iu  zco  x6)~cu  xov  ^ Ir^adb;  now  the  same  person 
who  was  dvaxtiyLZvoz  i7:c  to  azr^&o^  is,  xxi.  20,  according  to  the 
connection,  no  other  than  John ;  and  Polycrates  the  Ephesian 
(Euseb.  V.  24,)  also  calls  him  in  his  letter,  6  i-i  to  azr^&o^  too 
xupcou  dvaTztacov.  Baur,  it  is  true,  has  persuaded  himself  that 
the  Evangelist  thereby  wished  to  designate  himself  only  as  the 
one  who  wrote  the  Apocalypse,  as  him  who  with  a  spiritual 
insight  had  written  the  history  of  Jesus,  as  that  apocalyptic 
writer  had  written  the  history  of  the  Church's  future.  The 
timid  delicacy  in  this  half-veiled  designation,  whicli  in  a  modi- 
fied form,  is  also  found  in  i.  40,  vt^ill  appear  to  an  unprejudiced 
reader  as  a  distinctive  trait  of  the  literary  idiosyncrasy  of  the 
whole  Gospel. — In  i.  14,  and  1  John  i.  1,  he  makes  himself 
known  as  a  witness  ivith  others :  if  Baur  will  have  us  to  under- 
stand this  as  an  inward  seeing  only,  it  can  be  considered  as 
nothing  but  an  expedient  to  avoid  an  accusation  of  literary 
deception.     A  similar  inward  seeing,  a  hypophetic  seeing  in 

(431) 


432  Appendix  First.  —  L 

the  spirit  of  tlie  Apostolic  disguise,  wliicli  was  adopted  by 
Auouymus,  is  to  be  understood  also  in  the  other  passage,  xix. 
35,  where  it  is  expressly  stated  that  the  author  was  standing  by 
the  cross,  and  that  his  narrative  is  that  of  an  eye-witness.     In 
this  theory  (of  the  position  of  later  writers,  as  the  hypophetic 
priests  of  acknowledged  authorities,)  Kostlin^  imagines  that 
he  has  found  the  key  to  a  large  part  of  the  pseudonymous 
Church-literature  —  certainly  a   more   spiritualistic   and   more 
suitable  turn  for  certain  times  and  circles,  than  when  Hilgen- 
feld  simply  suggests  for  consideration,  (Evang.  Job.  p.  353,) 
that  at  the  period  in  question  "  no  such  thing  as  literary  property 
was  known."     He  seems,  however,  not  to  have  been  entirely 
wrong,  for  Dionysius  of  Corinth,  at  the  time  of  the  supposed 
origin  of  the  Gospel,  under  Marc  Aurelian,  complains:  "By 
request  of  the  brethren  I  have  written  some  letters  which  have 
been  filled  with  weeds,  and  otherwise  changed  by  taking  from 
and  addiog  to  them  by  the  apostles  of  the  devil;    woe  will 
befall  them.     It  is  therefore  not  astonishing  at  all,  that  some 
persons  should  have  dared  to  falsify  the  Scriptures  of  the  Lord 
also,  since  they  have  laid  hands  on  inferior  writings,"  (Euseb. 
iv.  23.)     We  may  compare  with  this  an  expression  by  Serapion 
of  Antioch,  at  the  end  of  the  second  century,  when  he  found 
in  a  congregation  of  Cilicia  a  spurious  vjayyihov  Ilirpoo,  con- 
taining heretical  doctrines :  "  My  brethren,  we  accept  Peter  and 
the  other  Apostles  as  well  as  Christ ;  but  the  pseudo-epigraphic 
writings  that  are  circulated  under  their  names,  we  as  judges 
<5>C  ejiTTecpoc  reject,  knowing  that  writings  of  that  sort  have  not 
been  transmitted  to  us,"  (Euseb.  vi.  12.)     Also  Tertullian's 
statement,  derived  from  an  occurrence  in  the  Church  of  Asia 
Minor,  de  bapt.  17  :  quod  si,  qui  Pauli  scripta  perperam  legunt, 
exemplum  Theclse  ad  licentiam  mulierum  docendi  fingendique 
defendunt,  sciant,  in  Asia  Presbyterum,   qui  eam  scripturam 
construxit,  quasi  titulo  Pauli  de  suo  cumulans,  convictum  atque 
confessum  id  se  aniore  Pauli  feeisse,  loco  decessisse. 

1  "Uber  die  pseudonyme  Litt,  der  altesten  kirche,"  Zeller  Jahrbuch,  1851. 


Appendix  First. — II.  433 

II. 

FROM  THE  SEVENTH  EDITION.     INTRODUCTION,  i  5. 

Construction. 

By  those  who  preceded  Lucke,  and  by  himself,  2d  ed.,  the 
days  of  the  feast  are  regarded  as  the  fixed  data  on  which  the 
related  events  occurred.  In  a  character  so  meditative  as  that 
of  the  Evangelist,  we  might  be  led  to  expect,  from  the  begin- 
ning, a  systematic  arrangement,  by  which  the  progress  of  the 
history  is  conditioned.  De  Wette  first  points  out  the  existence 
of  an  internal  plan :  the  introductory  history,  and  the  history, 
and  two  divisions  again  of  these,  which  represent  the  opposite 
phases  in  the  history  of  Jesus,  viz.  how,  during  his  sojourn 
upon  earth,  his  glory,  oo^a,  became  apparent,  but  was  mostly 
rc-jected  by  a  callous  world,  and  how,  by  his  death,  he  was  glo- 
rified, ch.  ii.-xii.;  the  other,  the  glorification  of  Jesus  through 
death,  (ch.  xiii.-xvii.,)  his  internal  glory  in  his  humility,  love, 
calmness  of  soul,  in  his  consciousness  of  victory,  and  ch.  xviii,- 
XX.,  the  history  of  his  external  glorification."  The  history  of 
his  public  labors  finds,  unmistakab]}^  a  final  resting-place  in 
ch.  xii.  37-50.  The  sorrowful  complaint  about  the  mass  of  his 
people,  who  were  unbelievers,  with  but  a  few  timid  exceptions, 
forms  the  theme  of  this  closing  part.  Casting  a  glance  back 
to  the  beginning,  we  find  the  final  result  already  expressed  in 
the  prologue,  v.  11,  12 :  "  He  came  unto  his  own,  and  his  own 
received  him  not,  but  as  many  as  received  him,  to  them  gave 
he  power  to  become  children  of  God,  even  to  them  that  believe 
on  his  name."  If  we  consider  the  peculiar  circumstance,  that  the 
adversaries  with  whom  Christ  had  to  deal  are  mostly  introduced 
as  ot  loodaioi,  whereby  we  are  to  understand  the  nation  as  a  whole, 
(iv.  22,  xi.  19,  33,  xii.  9,)  but  especially  as  representatives  of 
the  people,  and  at  the  same  time  as  the  centre  of  opposition, 
the  Jewish  Elders,  (i.  19,  ii.  18,  ix.  16-22,  xviii.  12,  14,)  it  fol- 
lows  that,  V.  (5)  11,  12,  the  theme  of  the  following  historical 
narrative  may  be  considered  to  be:  the  history  of  the  divine  life^ 
which  appeared  personally  in  humanity,  how  it  was  rejected  by  its 


434  Appendix  First.  —  II. 

ovm  people,  hut  became  to  the  small  number  who  received  it,  a 
source  of  life.  The  fact  that  the  history  of  the  Redeemer  is 
presented  in  this  point  of  view,  imparts  to  the  depicture  the 
tinge  of  sorrow  which  it  bears.  —  There  is  some  truth  in 
the  reproach  made,  that  the  opposition  is  not  introduced 
genetically  in  its  gradual  development.  In  the  first  four 
chapters  it  merely  makes  its  appearance  in  iv.  1,  but  at  once 
in  ch.  V.  reaches  its  full  extent,  ripened  into  a  plot  to  commit 
murder,  v.  16.  Yet  such  expressions  are  not  to  be  solicitously 
urged,  "they  are  to  be  understood  from  the  tendency  evincing 
itself  by  many  indications."  (Reuss,  Denkschrift,  p.  52.) 
Just  as  that,  which  according  to  the  Evangelist,  was  from  the 
first  germinating  in  the  heart  of  Judas,  finally  burst  forth,  so 
the  Evangelist  saw,  also,  from  the  beginning,  in  the  yet  waver- 
ing opposition,  the  principle  destined  finally  to  appear  openly, 
under  the  direction  of  that  God  who  had  foreseen  his  &pa,  (vii. 
30,  viii.  20,  xiii.  1,)  and  over  against  this  opposition  is  gathered, 
uninterruptedly,  the  small  flock  of  God's  children,  to  whom  the 
oaoc  oh  iXa^ov  ahxbv  pointed.  But,  as  the  grain  of  wheat  cannot 
produce  much  fruit  without  dying,  so,  also,  during  his  life  the 
period  has  not  arrived  when  he  can  draw  all  to  himself,  (viii. 
28,  xii.  32,) — the  road  to  perfect  glory  passes  by  the  cross ;  hence 
the  opposition  reaches  the  climax  in  the  face  of  a  most  striking 
a-/]fis1ov,  performed  before  the  very  eye  of  the  Sanhedrim,  the 
raising  of  Lazarus.  What  before  had  been  merely  a  plan  of  the 
Elders,  now  becomes  a  firm  determination,  ch.  xi.  Then  fol- 
low, ch.  xii.,  the  prophetic  anointing  for  his  burial,  his  entrance 
into  the  city,  where  by  the  altar  of  God  is  erected  the  altar 
upon  which  God's  prophet  is  to  be  sacrificed,  (Luke  xiii.  13.) 
Here  the  pre-announcement  of  his  approaching  ooqa  is  made  in 
the  act  of  the  Gentiles,  who  are  anxious  to  have  a  glimpse  of 
him,  then  in  the  word  pronounced  by  himself,  v.  24,  and, 
finall}',  by  the  divine  voice,  v.  31.  —  The  succeeding  events, 
including  the  death  and  the  resurrection,  (comp.  xiii.  31,)  are 
presented  in  ch.  xiii.-xx.  See  Luthardt,  i.  255,  in  his  thorough 
examination  of  the  different  opinions  on  the  construction.  Ha 
thinks  himself  able  to  show  three  subdivisions  within  each  of 
the  three  main  divisions. 


APPENDIX   SECOND. 


FROM  THE  SEVENTH  EDITION,  p.  CI -66. 

The  Logos. 

The  Evangelist  introduces  the  Logos  as  an  idea  not  unknown 
to  Lis  readers.  It  must  have  been  familiar  to  himself,  conse- 
quently, also,  to  the  circle  of  his  readers ;  for  he  has  also  intro- 
duced it  with  substantial!}^  the  same  meaning  in  Ilevelat.  xix. 
13,  and  in  1  John  i.  1. — It  must  seem  most  natural  to  the 
expositor  to  presuppose  that  the  Old  Testament  revelation 
would  furnish  the  point  with  which  this  idea  would  link  itself. 
Now  there  certainl}'-  is  already  in  the  Old  Testament  an  appre- 
hension of  the  distinction  between  God  as  he  is  in  Jnmself,  and 
as  he  is  to  the  world,  a  distinction  which  may  be  recognized  in 
Exodus  xxxiii.  12-23,  a  passage  which  deserves  a  profoundcr 
investigation  than  it  has  yet  received,  cf.  Kurtz,  Gesch.  des 
Alten  Bundes,    ii.    1855,  p.   321.^     In    the   revelations  under 

1  Maimonidcs,  More  Nevochim,  i.  21,  hns  put  upon  it  the  rational  construction  : 
Thoii  shalt  discern  my  thirteen  attributes,  but  not  my  essence.  The  tenor  of  the 
paraphrase  given  in  the  two  Palestinian  Tarpums  (about  500,  A.  D.)  is  very  myste- 
rious. In  the  Targum  Pseudo-Jonatlian,  v.  23  is  tiius  interpreted:  "  I  will  remove 
the  hosts  of  my  ministering  angels,  (thus  it  takes  the  words  "  my  hand,"  the  Poly- 
glot incorrectly  transire  faciani,)  and  thou  shalt  see  the  knot  of  the  phylacteries  of 
the  brightness  of  my  shekinah,  (  nrpjJ^  )  but  the  face  of  the  brightness  of  my 
shekinah  thou  canst  not  see."  This  passage  proves  to  what  an  extent  the  transla- 
tions of  these  Targumists  are  affected  by  tradition,  for  in  the  Talmud  this  notion 
of  the  divine  phylacteries  occurs  as  one  generally  received.  Gemara  Beracli.  f. 
vii.  1:  "R.  Chan.a,  in  the  name  of  R.  Simeon,  the  holy,  said  in  regard  to  the 
words  in  Exodus  xxxiii.  23:  'and  I  will  take  away  my  hand  and  thou  shalt  see 
my  back,'  —  this  teaches  us  that  God  showed  to  Moses  the  knots  of  the  piiylac- 
teries,  p'?'i3n  SiV  "yV/p."  The  same  work,  f.  vi.  ],  treats  more  at  large  of  these 
phylacteries  of  God.  The  knot  is  tied  on  the  back  of  the  head.  That  in  this  there 
is  an  intimation  given  of  insight  into  the  mysteries  of  God,  is  pointed  out  by  the 
Targum  Jeruschalmi :  "  I  will  remove  my  angels  and  thou  shnlt  see  the  adytum 
Nl'rn,  for  the  brightness  of  my  shekinah  tiioii  canst  not  see." — The  difference  be- 
tween the  new  view  presented  by  llofmann,  with  which  Kurtz  also  concurs,  (1.  c.  p. 

(435) 


436  Appendix  Second. 

the  old  covenant  it  is  the  ""'  "^x^n,  through  wliom  they  are 
mediated,  and  of  him  it  is  said,  Exodus  xxiii.  21:  "my 
name  is  in  him."  This  embassy  of  God,  (for  such  in  ac- 
cordance with  its  form,  is  the  proper  meaning  of  the  word 
^5$'?'?)  or  appearing  of  God,  is  also  named  (in  Exodus  xvi.  10, 
xxiv.  16,)  ""  nm,  the  glory  or  the  reflected  splendor  of  God; 
it  is  called  in  Isaiah  Ixiii.  9,  the  angel  of  the  face,  (or  presence,) 
that  is  the  angel  through  whom  God  becomes  manifest  to  the 
finite  world,  and  in  Mai.  iii.  1,  is  called  the  angel  of  the  cove- 
nant. Wherever  now  in  the  Old  Testament,  Jehovah,  or  the 
Maleach  Jehovah,  (as  for  example  in  Judges  vi.  11,)  is  men- 
tioned, the  Targumists  substitute  for  these  names,  the  terms 
•n  N^ip'o  or  even  J<^J3iy,  that  is  habitation,  tabernacle  of  God,  (see 
Gfrorer,  Jahrhund.  des  Heils,  1  Abth.  p.  306,  Lutterbeck 
"neutest.  Lehrbegriffo,"  i.  196.)  Now  Onkelos  and  the  Tar- 
gum  of  Jonathan  on  the  prophets,  belong,  according  to  the  most 
recent  critical  investigations,  to  the  first  half  of  the  first  century 
after  Christ,  (see  Zunz,  "gottesdienstlich.  Vortrage  der  Juden," 
p.  62,)  they  were  constantly  read  at  the  time  of  the  discourses 
in  the  synagogues.  Were  we  now  to  confine  ourselves  to  this 
point  and  keep  ourselves  within  the  limits  of  an  explanation 
which  would  suppose  a  merely  natural  genesis  of  the  idea,  it 
certainly  could  occasion  no  surprise  if  the  Apostles,  in  accord- 
ance with  the  impressions  made  upon  them  by  the  person  and 
the  works  of  Christ,  and  by  his  testimony  in  regard  to  himself, 
should  have  seen  in  Christ  the  appearing  of  that  very  word  of 
the  Old  Testament,  of  that  very  angel  of  revelation,  should  in 
fact  have  seen  in  him  the  culminating  point  of  the  revelations 
made  to  the  fathers,  (Heb.  i.  1.)  It  allows  of  proof,  moreover, 
that  not  alone  did  the  Apostles  do  this,  but  that  Christ  also 
considered  himself  in  identity  with  that  Old  Testament  princi- 
ple of  revelation :  and  here  belong  not  merely  John  xii.  39,  1 
Cor.  X.  4,  1  Peter  i.  11,  but  also  Matt,  xxiii.   34,   37. 

But  how  came  the  Scribes,  whose  theologumena  are  comprised 
in  the  Targum,  to  employ  the  term  "  Word  "  as  a  designation  of 

317,)  and  that  of  Hengstenberg  (Christologie,  i.  125,  2d  ed.)  is  rather  an  exegetical 
than  a  doctrinal  one.  In  advance  of  a  discussion  of  the  detached  passages  which 
present  difficulties,  the  question  might  arise,  whether  an  angel,  in  whom,  according 
to  Kurtz,  "  there  is  a  personal  and  eternal  presence  of  God,"  is  to  be  regarded  as  a 
creature,  and  not  rather  as  a  tbeophany. 


Appendix  Second.  437 

the  Mediator  of  revelation  ?  The  support  for  it  was  likewise 
furnished  in  the  Old  Testament  in  which,  on  tlie  one  hand,  the 
"Word  of  God"  is  the  Mediator  of  the  divine  wiU  to  the 
world,  (Ps.  xxxiii.  G,  clvii.  15,  18,  Isaiah  Iv.  11,  Ecclesiast.  xliii. 
26,  Wisdom  of  Solomon  xvi.  12;)  and  on  the  other  hand,  of 
the  hioivledgc  of  God,  (cf.  Ps.  xxxiii.  6  with  v.  4,  P.s.  cxlviii.19 
with  V.  15,  and  Ps.  cxlviii.  8  :)  the  Word  of  God  is  deposited  in 
the  law,  and  is  received  by  the  prophets  through  the  revelations 
made  to  them.  Inasmuch,  however,  as  not  merely  the  omnipo- 
tence, but  also  the  knowledge  of  God  manifests  itself  in  his 
^'■Word"  the  transition  was  an  easy  one,  by  which,  under  this 
term  the  divine  ivisdom  was  made  a  parallel  thought.  She  it  is 
who  "  in  the  beginning  of  His  ways,"  projected  and  carried  out 
the  divine  plan  of  the  world,  (Prov.  viii.  21,  seq.  iii.  19,)  she  is 
consequently  "the  thought  of  the  world  itself,  the  thought 
which  has  a  creative  working  and  ordering,  which  emanated 
from  God,  and  from  which  is  derived  all  i:)roportion  and  law  in 
nature,"  (Oehler,  "Grundziige  der  alttest.  Weisheit,"  1854,  p. 
6.)  As  the  knowledge  of  God,  she  is  of  herself,  also,  the 
instructress  of  men,  (Prov.  viii.  32,  Job  xxviii.  28.)  It  has  been 
her  constant  striving  to  embody  herself  in  mankind ;  according 
to  Sirach,  she  has  been  a  wanderer  even  among  the  Gentile 
nations,  has  made  her  habitation  among  the  peculiar  people,  and 
has  entered  into  the  book  of  the  law,  (Ecclesiasticus  xxiv.  12, 
seq.,  Baruch  iii.  37,  38,  iv.  1.)  In  Ps.  xxxiii.  6,  the  word  of  the 
Lord,  with  a  certain  self-dependence,  is  presented  in  a  parallel 
delineation  with  the  spirit  of  the  Lord;  in  Proverbs  and  in 
Sirach,  (Ecclesiasticus,)  wisdom  is  personified ;  in  the  Book  of 
Wisdom  she  is  hypostatized  by  imputing  to  her  a  spirit  which  is 
rational,  holy,  one  only,  penetrating  all  rational  spirits,  (Wisdom 
vii.  22-26.) — While  the  wisdom  of  God  is  thus  boidiug  herself 
to  enter  into  a  closer  union  with  finite  spirits,  the  shai)e  of  Mes- 
siah on  the  other  side,  as  ^prophecy  advances,  lifts  itself  more 
and  more  to  a  dignity  which  is  divine.  According  to  Micah, 
(v.  1,)  the  going  forth  of  the  Messiah  is  from  eternity;  accord- 
ing to  Malachi,  (iii.  1,)  he  is  the  angel  of  the  covenant ;  accord- 
ing to  the  Septuagint,  Isaiah  ix.  6,  he  is  the  dyj-eXo::  r^c  it-^rd-^^ 
^o>j?jj^,  (the  messenger  of  great  counsel ;)  according  to  Daniel  vii. 
it  is  he  who  cometh  in  the  clouds,  into  whose  kingdom  of  God, 
2d  38* 


438  Appendix  Second. 

the  last  of  all  kingdoms,  those  which  have  risen  in  the  history 
of  our  world  pour  themselves,  as  rivers  into  the  sea.  The  hook 
of  Enoch,  whose  most  ancient  iragment  is  as  old  as  the  period 
A.  110-130  before  Christ,  (Dillmann,  Buch  Henoch,  1853,  p. 
xxiv.)  furnishes  evidence  that  these  representations  of  Daniel 
must  have  exercised  a  wide  influence  in  the  century  before 
Christ.  In  this  book  of  Enoch  it  is  said  of  Messiah  that  he 
was  elected  before  the  creation  of  the  world,  that  the  angels 
know  him  and  praise  his  name,  and  that  it  was  to  him  in  his 
state  of  preexistence  that  Enoch  was  taken  up  into  heaven. 

AVere  we  allowed  now  to  presuppose  such  a  preparation  as 
existing,  why  may  not  that  Christologic  advance,  which  criti- 
cism thinks  can  not  be  earlier  than  the  second  century,  why 
may  it  not  have  been  complete  in  the  time  of  the  Apostles,  and 
adequate  to  contemplating  in  Christ  the  incarnation  of  the 
world-creating  Logos  ?  Let  us  only,  in  addition,  bring  to  mind 
that  although  the  Apostles  were  louozac,  unlearned,  yet  the 
manner  in  which  they  use  the  Scriptures  shows  that  we  are  to 
regard  them  as  men  whose  habit  it  was  thoughtfully  to  search 
the  Holy  Scriptures.  One  of  them,  Paul,  was  moreover  a 
Scribe,  and  it  is  in  him  especially,  and  in  the  author  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  that  we  find,  with  nothing  but  a  change 
of  terms,  John's  doctrine  of  the  Logos,  (Col.  i.  15,  16,  2  Cor. 
iv.  4,  Hebrews  i.  2.)  But  not  alone  on  considerations  of  a 
natural  character  do  we  maintain  our  position  :  would  not  that 
Spirit  promised  to  them,  the  Spirit  who  guides  into  all  truth, 
(xvi.  13,  14,)  under  whose  operation  that  Christologic  view  in 
the  sphere  of  the  Old  Testament  was  matured  to  the  point  at 
which  we  see  it  when  Christ  appeared,  would  he  not  complete 
his  operation  in  the  Apostles  by  turning  those  preparatory  rays 
on  that  very  Personage  to  whom  they  in  truth  pertained  ? — We 
consequently,  then,  discover  no  necessity  for  resorting  to  other 
sources  than  the  Bible,  in  order  to  explain  the  origin  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  Logos.  It  has,  to  be  sure,  been  customary  since 
Sender,  to  resort  to  Philo  for  this  purpose,  and  in  connection 
with  this  to  institute  an  investigation  whether  the  Logos  of 
Philo  is  to  be  regarded  merely  as  a  divine  principle  of  revela- 
tion in  the  world,  or  also  of  revelation  to  himself,  that  is, 
whether  he  imagined  the  Logos  himself  to  be  a  hypostasis. 


Appendix  Second.  439 

Cf.  the  literature  pertaining  to  this  subject,  in  Dorner,  Lehre  von 
der  Person  Christi,  i.  1,  p.  22.  But  even  in  Baumgarten- 
Crusius  we  already  have  a  sounder  judgment:  (Dogmengesch- 
ichte,  p.  1030,)  "  It  must  be  acknowledged,  that  faith  in  the 
deity  of  Christ  derived  its  origin  far  less  from  surrounding  tes- 
timonies or  opinions,  than  from  a  profound  and  a  sublime 
emotion,  which  sprung  from  a  contemplation  of  what  Christ  had 
been."  Thus  also  Dorner,  p.  102,  Neander,  Schmid,  Bibl. 
Theol.  ii.  369,  Meyer.  The  neaessity  of  deriving  from  Philo 
the  Logos  of  John,  has  been  expressly  contested  by  Ilofmann 
and  Luthardt,  but  we  would  be  just  as  far  from  assenting  to 
the  view,  which  sets  aside  the  entire  speculative  basis  and  the 
Old  Testament  development  of  doctrines,  and  understands  by 
the  Logos  simply  the  historical  Christ,  the  appearing  of  him 
who  is  the  subject  of  the  "Apostolic  annunciation,"  or  accord- 
ing to  Luthardt,  of  the  revealing  word  of  God  in  general :  "He 
who  (as  the  incarnate)  is  a  Logos  of  God  for  the  world  of  men, 
has  become  man."  Cf.  the  criticism  relating  to  this  point,  by 
TVeitzsacker  in  Reuter's  Rep.  1854,  p.  111. 

LUcke  and  even  Gfrorer,  have  also  found  that  it  is  improbable 
that  a  direct  use  was  made  of  the  writings  of  Philo :  there  is 
no  proof  that  these  writings  were  circulated  out  of  Palestine  in 
the  first  century,  cf.  Kostlin  in  Zellers  Jahrb.  1854,  p.  418. 
That  in  John's  circle  in  Ephesus  there  may  have  also  been 
Jews  of  Philonian  culture,  is  not  to  be  denied.  If  an  influence 
from  this  source  may  have  actually  been  exerted  on  the  Apos- 
tle's circle  of  ideas,  it  would  perhaps  be  most  natural  to 
suppose,  as  Keander  does,  (Pflanzung,  'p.  637,)  no  more  than 
that  the  link  was  of  an  antithetical  character:  "what  hitherto 
has  been  the  object  of  your  speculative  musing,  I  mean  the 
Logos,  has  now  appeared  in  the  body  as  man."  But  when  we 
discover  even  in  the  Apocalypse,  and  in  1  John  i.  2,  that  the 
Apostle  gives  prominence  to  the  very  same  view,  where  there 
was  no  occasion  for  any  antithetical  reference  of  this  kind,  does 
not  such  a  connecting  appear  in  the  highest  degree  improbable  ? 

On  the  basis  of  the  biblical  expressions  in  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments  consequently,  we  obtain  this  as  the  substance  of 
the  doctrine :  the  being  of  God  is  to  be  regarded  as  one  having 
a  distinction  in  itself.     In  his  Son,  his  Word,  his  Wisdom,  he 


440  Appendix  Second. 

himself  has  placed  his  counterpart,  in  which  he  has  revealed 
to  himself  and  personally  loved  the  fullness  of  his  own  being. 
In  this  Word,  in  which  he  has  expressed  himself  to  himself,  lay 
the  xbajioci  vorjro^,  the  system  of  the  world,  and  as  in  this  was 
grounded  the  creation,  that  is  the  actual  coming  forth  of  the 
idea  of  the  world  in  a  distinct  existence,  it  follows  that  the 
entire  relation  of  God  to  the  created  world,  all  revelation  in  it, 
and  consequently,  also,  the  highest,  the  incarnation  of  God,  is 
mediated  through  this  "Word. 

(Of.  on  the  doctrine  of  the  Logos,  Lectures  on  the  History 
of  Christian  Dogmatics,  by  Dr.  A.  Keander ;  edited  by  Jacobi. 
Translated  by  Kyland.    London :  Bohn,  1858,  vol.  i.  130-171. 


V7\.LUABLE    BOOKS 

PUBLISHED    AND    IMPORTED    BY 

SMITH  EI^GLISI-I  &  CO. 

Sooliselleiifi,  Jmprt4rs  and  |ublishi}rs, 

No.  40  Nortli  Sixtli  Street,  Philadelpliia. 


^^*Any  of  thb  Books  in  this  list  sent  by  mail,  prepaid,  ox  receipt  of  the  Re- 
tail Price. 
^^*A  Complete  Catalogue  of  our  Theological  and  Religious  Books  in  store 

FORWARDED  UPON  APPLICATION,  FREE  OF  CHARGE. 


FAIRBAIRN'S  HERMENEUTICAL  MANUAL. 

Hermeneutical  Manual;  or,  Introduction  to  the  Exegetical 
Study  of  the  New  Testament.  By  Patrick  Fairbairn,  D.  D., 
Principal  and  Professor  of  Divinity  in  the  Free  Church  College,  Glas- 
gow, and  Author  of  "Typology  of  Scripture,"  &c.  12mo.  pp.  524. 
$1.50. 

CONTENTS.  —  Part  I.  Discussion  of  Facts  and  Principles  bearing  on  the 
Language  of  New  Testament  Scripture: — The  Original  Language,  Characteristics 
of  New  Testament  Greek,  Collateral  Sources,  General  Rules  and  Principles,  False 
and  True  Accommodation,  Analogy  of  Faith,  Religions  of  the  Ancient  World,  Rela- 
tion of  the  Old  Testament  to  the  New,  Tropical  Parts,  Parables,  Parallelism. 
Part  IL  Particular  Subjects  connected  with  the  Exegesis  of  New  Testament 
Scripture : — Two  Genealogies  of  Christ,  Doctrine  of  Angels,  Names  of  Christ,  Im- 
port of  the  Terms,  False  Prophets,  False  Christs,  And- Christ,  ij-c.  On  Baptizo,  ^e. 
JIades,  Diathek€;  On  the  Words  rendered  Repentance,  New  Creation,  .J-c;  On  the  use 
of  Parafkeue  and  Patcha.  Part  IIL  Use  of  Old  Testament  Scripture  in  the  New 
Testament: — Manner  of  Citation,  Mode  of  Application,  Christ's  Birth  at  Bethlehem, 
Cjrenius  and  the  Taxing.     Full  Indices  of  Subjects  and  Texts  Illustrated  are  added. 


2  SMITH,    ENGLISH    &   CO.    PHILADELPHIA. 

TESTIMONIALS  OF  FAIRBAIRN'S  HEEMENEUTICAL  MANITAI. 

JVom  the  Mtv.  T.  V.  Moore,  D.  D.,  Richmond,  Va.,  Author  of  the  able  Commentary  on  "The  Prophets  of 
the  Restoration,"  (Presbyterian.) 
I  have  for  a  number  of  years  been  familiar  with  the  critical  writings  of  Professor  Fairbairn,  and  I 
regard  him  as  one  of  the  finest  exegetical  writers  now  living.  He  combines  Scottish  good  sense  and 
German  erudition  to  a  vi^ry  remarkable  degree.  Hence  he  has  precisely  the  training  that  would  enable 
him  to  give  a  fresh  and  suggestive  work  on  Hermeneutics.  Such  a  work  I  consider  his  Manual  to  be. 
Without  going  into  any  tedious  detail,  it  presents  the  points  that  are  important  to  a  student.  There  is 
a  breadth  of  view,  a  clearness  and  nianliness  of  thought,  and  a  ripeness  of  learning  that  make  the  work 
one  of  pecviliar  freshness  and  interest.    I  consider  it  a  very  valuable  addition  to  every  student's  library. 

From  the  Rev.  S.  O.  Bartlett,  D.  D.,  Professor  of  Sacred  Literature  in  Chicago  Theological  Seminary, 

{Congregational.) 
I  regard  Fairbairn's  Hernioneutieal  Manual  as  on  the  whole  the  most  useful  treatise  on  the  subject 
that  is  now  accessible  to  students  of  Theology.  It  is  reverent  and  evangelical  in  spirit ;  exhibits  marks 
of  familiarity  with  the  present  state  of  Biblical  Literature;  and  though  some  may  except  to  its  ten- 
dencies in  regard  to  the  doctrine  of  Types,  and  though  I  might  not  defend  all  its  positions  on  this  and 
other  topics,  I  regard  the  work  as  advocating  a  deeper  and  sounder  view  of  the  internal  relations  of 
the  word  of  God,  including  both  Tj'pe  and  Prophecy,  than  that  which  has  been  somewhat  prevalent  in 
this  country.    I  shall  recommend  it  to  the  students  of  this  Seminary. 

Prom  the  Rev.  A.  C.  Kendrick,  D.  D.,  Professor  of  Greek  in  the  l/hiversity  of  Rochester,  (Baptist,)  and 
Editor  of  the  American  edition  of  Olshausen's  Commentaries. 
I  regard  Fairbairn's  Ilermeneutical  Manual  as  an  excellent  work,  sound  in  its  principles,  evangelical 
in  its  tone,  and  evincing  all  the  necessary  learning.  It  occupies  a  ground  which  no  other  work  in  our 
language  adequately  covers,  and  must  therefore  be  extremely  acceptable  and  useful  to  students  of  the 
New  Testament.  With  a  few  of  the  author's  special  interpretations  I  might  not  perhaps  concur,  and 
I  think  it  unfortunate  that  by  his  argument  on  the  word  baptizo,  he  has  given  a  partially  sectarian 
character  to  a  work  which  should  be  strictly  Catholic.  In  the  main,  however,  I  can  commend  the 
work  most  cordially,  and  shall  feel  it  a  duty  to  do  what  I  can  to  promote  its  use  among  Biblical 
students. 

From,  the  Rev.  George  B.  MiUer,  D.  P.,  Professor  of  Theology  in  Hartwick  Theological  Seminary,  New 

York,  (Lutheran^ 
I  consider  Fairbairn's  Hermeneutical  Manual  one  of  the  most  valuable  additions  lately  made  to  the 
helps  for  Theological  Students,  and  a  great  advance  upon  previous  works  of  this  kind  that  were  accessi- 
ble to  such  as  read  English.  It  is  just  such  a  work  as  I  have  long  desired  to  see,  combining  the  results 
of  modern  investigations  and  original  inquiries  with  a  reverence  for  the  inspired  character  of  the 
Scriptures,  which  we  some  times  miss  in  German  authors,  even  such  as  are  in  the  main  evangelical. 
From  the  Rev.  J.  Packard,  D.  D.,  Professor  of  Sacred  Literature  in  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Theological 

Seminary  of  Virginia. 

I  have  been  for  some  time  acquainted  with  the  merits  of  Fairbairn's  Hermeneutical  Manual,  and 

have  a  high  opinion  of  it,  as  initiating  the  student  into  the  right  method  of  investigating  exegetical 

questions.  It  exhibits  sound  orthodoxy,  extensive  learning,  and  a  judicious  selection  of  what  is  valuable 

in  the  German  writers,  and  is  far  in  advance  of  most  works  of  the  same  kind  from  the  English  press. 

I  hope  to  see  it  extensively  used,  and  will  do  all  in  my  power  to  promote  its  use. 
From  the  Rev.  Henry  Bannister,  D.  D.,  Professor  of  Sacred  Literature  in  Garret  BiWca}  L^stitute.  Evans- 

ton,  III.  (Methodist.) 
I  have  ever  found  great  satisfaction  in  reading  the  Biblical  works  of  Dr.  Fairoairu  for  the  sound  sense, 
careful  inquiry  and  freedom  from  extreme  views  therein  exhibited.  After  a  somewhat  attentive  perusal 
of  the  greater  part  of  his  Hermeneutical  Manual,  my  good  opinion  of  him  as  an  instructive  author  and 
safe  guide  in  sacred  studies,  is  not  the  least  abated.  I  shall  take  pleasure  in  recommending  the  Manual 
to  my  classes. 

WINER'S  IDIOMS. 

A  GrRAMMAR  OP  THE  NeW  TESTAMENT  DiCTION,  INTENDED  AS  AN  TntRO- 
DUCTION   TO   THE  CRITICAL   StUDY  OF  THE  GrEEK  NeW  TESTAMENT. 

By  Dr.  GtEORGE  Benedict  Winer.  Translated  from  the  Sixth  En- 
larged and  Improved  Edition  of  the  Original,  by  Edward  Masson, 
formerly  Professor  in  the  University  of  Athens.     2  vols.  8vo.    ^3.50. 


SMITH,    ENGLISH    &   CO.    PIIILADliTLrHIA.  8 

BENGEL'S  GNOMON. 

Gnomon  op  the  New  Testament.  By  John  Albert  Bengel.  Now 
first  translated  into  English,  with  Original  Notes,  explanatory  and  illus- 
trative. Revised  and  Edited  by  the  Rev.  Andrew  R.  Fausset,  M. 
A.,  of  Tnnity  College,  Dublin.     5  vols.  8vo.    §10.00. 

Fi-otn  the  "  Bibliotlieca  Sucra." 

It  is  (I  thesaurus  of  terse,  pithy,  luminous,  and  somctinips  lulminible  o\p«)sition8  of  tho  words  and 
phrases  in  the  New  Testament.  It  is  in  fact  a  •'Gnomon,"  a  "  Pointer,"  an  "Indicator,"  as  on  a  sun^lial, 
of  the  a.eauinK  of  tho  Kvangelists  and  Apostles.  It  li.is  been  an  invalnalilo  aid  to  the  (-ommentatora  of 
more  recent  times  ;  and  wo  aro  happy  to  seo  that  all  our  clertcynien  may  now  have  access,  in  their  mother 
tongue,  to  tho  work  which  h-as  already  instructed  tlionj  through  the  meilium  of  critics  familiar  with 
the  original  of  this  most  suggestivo  index.  The  translators  have  performed  their  work  with  much 
pains-taking,  and  have  rendered  an  important  service  to  many  American  scholars,  who  arc  interested  in 
critical  and  theological  investigations. 

From  the  "  Evangelical  Review,"  Gettysburg,  Pa. 

His  Gnomon  is  fairlj'  entitled  to  the  appellation  of  a  Classic  Exposition  of  the  New  Testament.  We  hare 
been  reading  the  Gnomon  for  more  than  thirty  j'ears,  and  can  never  tire  of  it.  We  have  often  found 
it  good,  both  for  the  head  and  heart,  and  have  dealt  out  to  our  pupils,  from  time  to  time,  his  compre- 
hensive, but  brief,  solutions  of  the  Holy  Book.  The  editor  appears  to  us  to  bo  doing  his  work  with 
jToat  judgment  and  fine  taste,  and  the  translators,  whose  task  is  not,  we  are  sure,  always  e.isy,  —  for 
Beugel's  conciseness,  like  that  of  Tacitu.s,  is  sometimes  not  easily  penetrated, — are  performing  their 
task  well. 

THOLUCK'S  COMMENTARY  ON  JOHN. 

Commentary  on  the  Gospel  of  John.  By  Dr.  A.  Tholuck.  Trans- 
lated from  the  German,  by  Charles  P.  Krauth,  D.  D.,  Pittsburgh, 
Pa.     8vo.  cloth.  .  S2.25. 

The  Commentary  of  Tholuck  is  comprehensive  and  thorough,  yet  compact.  It  presents  a  groat  deal 
ii\  a  comp.oratively  sm.ill  compass,  and  is  therefore  a  manual.  The  selectest  thoughts  of  Fathers,  of 
Refoniiers,  and  of  recent  writers,  are  brought  together,  and  combined  with  what  has  been  furnished  bj- 
the  author  himself.  Genius,  culture,  piety  in  aflSnitj'  with  that  of  John,  are  his  ch.aracteristics ;  and 
his  work,  whether  in  the  hands  of  the  learner,  or  of  the  scholar,  of  the  intelligent  Liy  student  of  the 
Diblo,  of  the  pastor,  or  of  the  theologian,  will  be  found  a  treasure  of  learning,  of  original  thought,  and 
of  all  that  ministers  to  the  wants  of  the  Christian  heart. 

CASES  OF  CONSCIENCE. 

Religious  Cases  of  Conscience  answered  in  an  Evangelical 
Manner.  By  the  Rev.  S.  Pike,  and  the  Rev.  S.  IIayward.  A 
New  Edition,  with  an  Introduction  by  the  Rev.  Henry  A.  Board.man, 
D.  D.     12mo.     Sl.OO. 

Frnm  the  "  Evangdiail  Itepnsitnry,"  Philadelphia,  {Vnited  Preshyterinn.) 
We  aro  very  glad  to  learn  that  a  New  Kdition  of  this  book  has  been  called  for.  It  would  bo  snperflo- 
ous  for  us  to  sjiy  any  thing  in  commendation  of  it.  Wo  m.iy  simply  s.iy,  that  if  any  of  our  Christian 
friends,  in  purcha-slng  a  library,  should  be  restricted  to  a  dozen  books,  our  advice  would  be  that  the 
"Ca.scs  of  Con.sciences"  should  bo  one  of  them.  Dr.  Boardman's  Introduction,  though  brief,  is  like 
every  thing  from  his  pen — full  of  sensible  and  important  thoughts. 

From  the  "  Preshyterian,"  Philadelphia  and  Sew  Virrk. 
This  book  is  so  well  known  and  generally  esteemed  as  to  need  no  formal  commendation.  Although  it 
cannot  be  supposed  to  solve  all  the  cases  of  casuistry  which  may  ariso,  it  suggests  many  important 
thoughts,  and  aftords  to  pastors  particularly,  a  happy  method  of  treating  cases  which  may  recur  among 
their  own  fl'>cks.  It  is  a  good  book  for  all  readers.  We  are  happy  to  announce  a  new  edition,  which  is 
appropriately  prefaced  by  Dr.  Boardman. 


4  SMITH,    ENGLISH    &   CO.    PHILADELPHIA. 

FOOTE'S   LECTURES   ON   LUKE. 

Lectures  on  the  Gospel  according  to  Luke.  By  the  Rev.  James 
FooTE,  M.  A.,  late  Minister  of  the  Free  East  Church,  Aberdeen. 
Third  Edition,  Revised.     2  vols.  8vo.     $6.00. 

These  Lectures,  CXXXVII.  in  number,  will  be  found  very  useful  and  suggestiTe  to  clergymen  who 
may  be  engaged  in  a  course  of  Lectures  on  Luke's  Gospel.  They  are  the  production  of  one  who  pos- 
Bessed  a  discriminating  understanding,  a  mature  judgment,  and  earnest  piety ;  and  are  the  result  of 
extensive  reading,  careful  examination  and  research.  They  are  admirable  specimens  of  the  good  old 
Scottish  style  of  Lecturing,  whereby  the  people  of  the  North  were  wont  to  be  so  thoroughly  indoty 
trinated  in  Scripture  knowledge.  Mr.  Foote's  style  is  clear,  his  manner  earnest,  his  exegesis  generally 
satisfactory.  His  doctrine  is  that  large  Biblical  CalTinism  which  finds  room  for  and  appropriates  tlie 
elements  of  truth  that  are  in  the  Arminian  scheme. 

Though  the  subject  of  the  commentary  is  one  work  of  a  single  Eyangelist,  it  is  expanded  into  a  pra^ 
tical  harmony  of  the  Gospels,  for  which  undertaking  St.  Luke  offers  a  basis  in  many  respects  eligible. 

STIER'S  WORDS   OF  JESUS. 

The  Worps  of  the  Lord  Jesus.  By  Rudolf  Stier,  D.  D.,  chief  Pas- 
tor and  Supciintcodent  of  Schkeuditz.  Translated  from  the  Second 
Revised  and  Enlarged  Grerman  Edition,  by  the  Rev.  William  B.  Pope, 
London.     8  vols.  Svo.     $16.00 

«  One  of  the  most  precious  books  for  the  spiritual  interpretation  of  the  Gospels." — ArcTideaecm  Bare. 

"TVe  know  of  no  Exposition  of  the  Gospels  which  can  compare  witJl  this  inTalual;le  production." — 
Eclectic  Review. 

"  We  know  not  that  there  is  any  work  of  any  ecclesiastical  age,  containing,  within  any  thing  like 
the  same  compass,  so  many  pregnant  instances  of  what  true  genius,  in  chastened  Bubmission  to  the 
control  of  a  sound  philology,  and  gratefully  accepting  the  seasonable  and  suitable  helps  of  a  wholesome 
erudition,  is  capable  of  doing  to  the  spiritual  exegesis  of  the  sacred  volume.  Every  page  is  frrtted  and 
studded  with  lines  and  forms  of  the  most  alluring  beauty.  At  every  step  the  reader  is  constrained  to 
pause  and  wonder,  lest  he  should  overlook  one  or  other  of  the  many  precious  blossoms  whicli,  in  the 
most  dazzling  profusion,  are  scattered  around  his  path.  The  heart  and  hand  of  a  master  in  Israel  is 
everywhere  manifest." — British  and  Foreign  Evangelical  Review. 

HENGSTENBERG'S  CHRISTOLOGY. 

ChRISTOLOGY    op   THE   OlD  TESTAMENT,  AND    A   COMMENTARY   ON   THE 

Messianic  Predictions.     By  Dr.  E.  W.  Hengstenberg.  Transla- 
ted by  the  Rev.  T.  Mayer.     4  vols.  Svo.     $8.00. 

"A  work  which  from  its  thoroughness  of  investigation,  its  critical  acumen,  and  its  devout  and  earnest 
spirit,  must  ever  take  high  rank  in  Biblical  exposition.  Hengstenberg  is  too  eager,  perhaps,  at  times  to 
find  a  Messianic  reference,  an  to  spiritualize  the  more  literal  facts  of  prophecy,  but  his  tone  is  generally 
candid  and  sound.  His  Christologj'  will  greatly  enrich  the  resources  of  pastors,  and  enhance  their 
practical  estimate  of  the  Old  Testament."— TAe  Independent. 


Date  Due 


\ 


